ArticleBMJ open2021
Psychometric evaluation of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale in Chinese adults with rheumatic diseases: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement properties of Chinese-version assessment tools of self-efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a COSMIN-based systematic review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Influence of Depressive Symptoms on Disease Activity in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Mediating Effect of Self-Efficacy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Association Between Fatigue and Depressive Symptoms in Females with Rheumatoid Arthritis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- An Exploration of Self-Efficacy and Its Associated Factors among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Taiwan.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES) was designed to assess the degree of self-efficacy among patients with arthritis. Though the original English version of this instrument has shown a high degree of reliability and validity, a Chinese version of this scale has yet to be validated. Therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the Chinese version of ASES (C-ASES) in a population of Chinese adults with rheumatic diseases (RDs).
methodsAfter completing backward translation and expert validity, a convenient sample of 258 qualified participants with RDs from a hospital in Taiwan were recruited to explore the content validity, concurrent validity, construct validity, internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability of C-ASES.
resultsThe C-ASES has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability, with a Cronbach α of 0.91 and intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89, respectively. Concurrent validity was acceptable, with significant correlation between the subscales of the C-ASES and perceived depressive symptoms, as measured by the Taiwanese Depression Questionnaire (p<0.05). The exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor solution (physical function, experienced pain and other symptoms) corresponding to the structure of the original instrument, which accounted for 59.78% of the total variance.
conclusionEmpirical data support the assertion that C-ASES is a reliable and valid screening instrument to assess self-efficacy in Chinese-speaking patients with RDs. C-ASES may be useful as a reference guide in providing appropriate interventions for bolstering self-efficacy among Chinese-speaking patients with RDs.
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.