ArticleBMJ open2021
Reliability and validity of the Healthy Fitness Measurement Scale Version 1.0 (HFMS V1.0) in Chinese people.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translation and validation of the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised Indicator (BSS-RI) in Chinese.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a Wechat mini app-based screening tool (eR-BFAS) for early detection of Parkinson's disease.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- Factors associated with functional ability in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy: a prospective longitudinal study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Translation and validation of the Chinese version of the maternal postpartum stress scale.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Article
- Validation of reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the active-empathic listening scale.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the reliability and validity of Healthy Fitness Measurement Scale Version 1.0 (HFMS V1.0) for different population cohorts in the city of Guangzhou, Guangdong, China and to provide evidence and tools for further evaluation of healthy fitness of Chinese population and related factors.
designCross-sectional study.
settingUrban neighbourhood and Medical University.
participantsElderly people (n=393; mean age 68.27±6.38 years; 53.18% male), university students (n=390; mean age 19.29±1.29 years; 38.21% male) and urban residents (n=393; mean age 32.23±9.41 years; 44.78% male). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were evaluated the reliability and validity of HFMS V1.0 by internal consistency evaluation, split-half reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant construct validity, and factor analysis.
resultsThe Cronbach's α coefficients for HFMS V1.0 were all greater than 0.85 for overall scale of total samples and three individual groups, and the split-half reliability and intragroup correlation coefficients were both greater than 0.70 (p<0.01). The correlation of each item, dimension and subscales ranged from 0.52 to 0.91 (
conclusionHFMS V1.0 showed acceptable reliability and validity in the test of healthy fitness of general population in Guangzhou. This scale could be a reliable measurement tool for evaluation of healthy fitness and potential risk factors.
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.