ArticlePsychology research and behavior management2021
Development and Validation of Peer Relationship Scale for Chinese Community-Dwelling Elderly.
Article in Psychology research and behavior management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of the social frailty scale for the older adult in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Perspectives on the popularization of smart senior care to meet the demands of older adults living alone in communities of Southwest China: A qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- The development of career planning scale for junior high school students based on cognitive information processing theory.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to develop and psychometrically test the peer relationship scales (PRSs) for the Chinese community-dwelling elderly.
methodsBased on the Adams-Blieszner-Ueno integrative conceptual framework, we first drafted item-pool from the literature review, in-depth interviews, and group discussion. After a cross-sectional study in Chongqing, PR, China, we recruited a random sample of 404 community-dwelling individuals aged ≥ 65 years. Subsequently, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to examine the factor structure of the scales. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and split-half reliability were used to assess internal consistency. Moreover, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and construct validity were all calculated.
resultsThe results supported a two-factor (ie, quantity of intimate peer relationship, the quantity of non-intimate peer relationship) model for PRS-Quantity and a 12-item three-factor (ie, cognitive process, affective process, behavioral process) model for PRS-Quality. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.870 for PRS-Quantity and 0.851 for PRS-Quality. Both scales showed good test-retest reliability (r = 0.890 for PRS-Quantity, r = 0.889 for PRS-Quality), concurrent validity (r = 0.832 for PRS-Quantity, -0.800 for PRS-Quality), and acceptable construct validity. DISCUSSION: Overall, our findings suggested that the PRSs are reliable and valid measurements to evaluate the quantity and quality of peer relationships among Chinese community-dwelling elderly. The scales may serve as attempted tools for researchers and practitioners to access the social health of the elderly and evaluate the effectiveness of related services.
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.