ArticlePloS one2024
The Chinese version of the general benefit finding scale (GBFS): Psychometric properties in a sample of college students.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
backgroundBenefit finding has become a central construct in the evolution of positive psychology and attracted attention in recent literature. This study aimed to translate and validate the General Benefit Finding Scale (GBFS) in Chinese college students.
methodsForward- and back-translation of the GBFS was followed by the assessment of semantic equivalence and content validity. A sample of 589 college students was recruited in China to conduct reliability and validity analysis. The construct validity was assessed using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Concurrent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients of the GBFS with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and World Health Organization-Five Well-Being (WHO-5). Internal consistency and two-week test-retest reliability were also evaluated.
resultsThe content validity index for each item ranged from 0.83 to 1.00. EFA revealed a six-factor model, which exhibited acceptable goodness of fit in CFA (standardized root mean square residual = 0.031, root mean square error of approximation = 0.059, goodness-of-fit index = 0.860, comparative fit index = 0.904, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.890, chi-squared/degree of freedom = 2.07). The concurrent validity of the GBFS was supported by its statistically significant correlations with PSS (r = -0.271, p<0.001) and WHO-5 (r = 0.354, p<0.001). Moreover, the internal consistency for the overall scale was satisfactory, with Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.93 and McDonald's omega reliability of 0.94. The test-retest reliability was 0.82.
conclusionsAlthough the Chinese version of GBFS was examined in a homogeneous convenience sample of college students, it provides a reliable and valid instrument for assessing benefit finding in the Chinese context.
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.