ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Examining the dimensionality, reliability, and invariance of the Chinese version of the Resilience Scale-14: A multicenter cross-sectional survey in Chinese junior nurses.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. 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.
- Psychometric Validation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 in Peruvian Nurses and Its Association with Stress and Empathy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Factors influencing workplace violence among Chinese nurses: a multicenter cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The influential factors of anxiety among caregivers of children with CL/P: a path analysis based on diathesis-stress theoretical model.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Research hotspots and trends in healthcare workers' resilience: A bibliometric and visualized analysis.Heliyon · 2024Review
- The effect of emotion regulation strategies on nomophobia in college students: The masking role of resilience.Heliyon · 2024Article
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
Background: This study aimed to present the psychometric properties (dimensionality, reliability, and invariance) of the Chinese 14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14) within Chinese register nurses (RNs) with less than 3 years work experiences. And we aimed to compare the fit of a unidimensional model and a bifactor model. Materials and methods: This multicenter cross-sectional survey was conducted from August to September in 2019. A total of 7,231 registered nurses from 90 hospitals were recruited. Data was anonymously obtained through online questionnaires. Both reliability and validity of Chinese RS-14 were assessed. The confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used to compare the fit of two different factor structures of the RS-14 (unidimensional model vs. a bifactor model). Moreover, multigroup CFA (MGCFA) were applied to evaluate the measurement invariance (MI) across sociodemographic parameters (gender, educational level, marital status, and et al.). Design: Cross-sectional quantitative analyses. Results: Our study confirmed that the bifactor model presented the best fit within Chinese nurses (CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.909, RMSEA = 0.095, SRMR = 0.043), and found strong factorial invariance across gender, marital status, and status of receiving standardized training. The reliability of RS-14 was high with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.939. Moreover, RS-14 was positively correlated with the social support and was negatively correlated with workplace bullying. Conclusion: This is the first study to explore the latent factor structure for the RS-14 among Chinese RNs and evaluated MI across a series of sociodemographic variables. Based on our findings, the Chinese version RS-14 is both valid and reliable.
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.