ArticleNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University2021
[Reliability and validity of Healthy Fitness Measurement Scale (V1.0) for evaluating healthy fitness of college students in Guangzhou].
Article in Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice on Atrial Fibrillation and Atrial Fibrillation Screening in High-Risk Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2025Article
- Reliability and validity of the Healthy Fitness Measurement Scale Version 1.0 (HFMS V1.0) in Chinese people.BMJ open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of Healthy Fitness Measurement Scale V1.0 (HFMS V1.0) for assessing healthy fitness status of college students in Guangzhou.
methodsA total of 584 college students were evaluated with HFMS V1.0. The reliability and validity of HFMS V1.0 scale were assessed for its discrimination degree, Cronbach α coefficient, split-half reliability, test-retest reliability, content validity, structural validity, calibration validity and responsiveness.
resultsThe Cronbach α of HFMS V1.0 scale was 0.893, the split-half coefficient was 0.909, and the test-retest coefficient was 0.923. The correlation coefficients of each dimension with its subscales ranged from 0.687 to 0.931. The correlation coefficient between each item and its dimension ranged from 0.558 to 0.863(
conclusionsHFMS V1.0 has high reliability and validity for evaluating healthy fitness status of college students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.