ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Validation of the Chinese version of the resilience scale for the oldest-old.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Resilience is one of the most important variables associated with adaptive ability. The resilience scale for the oldest-old age (RSO) has been designed to measure the resilience among the oldest-old people. Originally developed in Japan, this scale has not been used in China. The objective of this study was to translate the RSO into Chinese and investigate its validity and reliability among the community's oldest-old adults aged ≥80 years. Methods: A total of 473 oldest-old people who came from communities were recruited by convenience sampling for the assessment of construct validity using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In addition, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, face validity, and content validity were used to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of RSO. Results: The RSO demonstrated good face validity and content validity. The content validity index of the Chinese version of the RSO was 0.890. Moreover, one factor was extracted by exploratory factor analysis, which accounted for 61.26% of the variance. The RSO had high internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha = 0.927. The test-retest reliability was 0.785. The item-total correlations ranged from 0.752 to 0.832. Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that the Chinese version of the RSO questionnaire has good reliability and validity and can be recommended for use by health and social service agencies as a method for assessing the resilience of the oldest-old in the community.
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.