ArticleSpinal cord2022
Does the Danish version of the Spinal Cord Lesion-related Coping Strategies Questionnaire measure what we think it measures? A triangulated mixed-methods validation approach.
Article in Spinal cord, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designTriangulated mixed-methods validation study.
objectivesTo validate the Danish version of the Spinal Cord Lesion-related Coping Strategies Questionnaire (SCL-CSQ).
settingCommunity in Denmark.
methodsParticipants were invited via a patient organization and its specialized hospital. Eligibility criteria were having a spinal cord injury (SCI), being 18 years or older, and able to understand and respond in Danish. Quantitative data were collected to determine internal consistency and criterion validity of the three subscales of SCL-CSQ, i.e., acceptance, fighting spirit, and social reliance. The Three-Step Test-Interview approach was employed to determine whether items measured what they were intended to measure (i.e., construct validity based on response processes).
resultsThe quantitative sample consisted of 107 participants, and the interview sample comprised 11 participants. The acceptance and fighting spirit subscales showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.72 and 0.76 respectively) and satisfactory criterion validity (expected correlations with quality of life and depression). The social reliance subscale showed inadequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.58) and criterion validity. All fighting spirit items and all but one acceptance items were interpreted congruently by most participants. Conversely, two social reliance items were only interpreted congruently by 9 and 27%.
conclusionThe acceptance and fighting spirit subscales of the Danish version of the SCL-CSQ showed good psychometric properties, while the social reliance subscale showed serious issues and should be revised. Researchers and clinicians are urged to reflect on these findings when revising the SCL-CSQ or adapting it to other languages, cultural contexts, and rehabilitation settings.
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.