ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2022
Translation and psychometric testing of the simplified version of the health-related diet and exercise self-efficacy scale in China.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2022. 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.
- Article
- Objectively-Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors and Related Factors in Chinese Immigrants in the US with Prior Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring health-related diet and exercise self-efficacy is an important first step in improving healthy behaviors and health outcomes. However, we did not find a self-efficacy measurement in Chinese that is specifically targeted at diet and exercise self-efficacy among healthy adults.
aimThe present study aimed to translate the Health-Related Diet and Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale -simplified version into Mandarin Chinese (HRDESES) and evaluate its reliability and validity in Chinese healthy adults.
methodsThe HRDESES was translated and adapted to the Chinese context, with a good content validity of 0.86 among seven experts. The survey was then carried out in 216 adults in Hunan, China. Testing of the reliability included internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability, while validity included content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity.
resultsThe Cronbach's α of the HRDESES was 0.87 for the total scale, 0.86 for the diet subscale and 0.91 for the exercise subscale; the McDonald's ω of the HRDESES-SC was 0.85 for the total scale, 0.86 for the diet subscale and 0.91 for the exercise subscale, all demonstrating good internal consistency. The test-retest reliability was 0.88 for the total scale, 0.81 for the diet subscale and 0.82 for the exercise subscale, demonstrating good test-retest reliability. For construct validity, the scale effectively distinguished subjects by age, gender, education, occupation, marital status, and family income, showing good discriminant validity. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a two-factor structure of the scale: diet and exercise subscale. It was demonstrated that the HRDESES was highly associated with the General Self-Efficacy Scale and its two subscales, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 (p < 0.05), showing high criterion validity.
conclusionThe HRDESES had good reliability and validity and could be used as a simple and effective tool for assessing the health-related diet and exercise self-efficacy in Chinese healthy adults.
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.