ArticlePsicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS2024
Assessment of the psychometric properties of the traditional Chinese version of the cancer survivors' self-efficacy scale.
Article in Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe reliability and validity of the traditional Chinese version of the Cancer Survivors' Self-Efficacy Scale (CS-SES-TC) has not been assessed.
objectiveTo assess the psychometric properties of the Traditional Chinese version of the CS-SES-TC.
methodsParticipants were recruited from the outpatient departments of a hospital in Taiwan. A single questionnaire was administered to 300 genitourinary cancer survivors. The scales included in the initial questionnaire were the CS-SES-TC, the General Self-Efficacy Scale, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scale (FACT-G). Data obtained from 300 survivors were used to confirm the structure through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsThe CFA results indicate that the 11-item CS-SES-TC is consistent with the original scale. Furthermore, it was identified as a unidimensional scale, with the model showing acceptable goodness-of-fit (CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97). The factor loading of each item in the CS-SES-TC was above 0.6 and had convergent validity. Based on multiple-group CFA testing, the change (ΔCFI) between the unconstrained and constrained models was ≤ 0.01, indicating that measurement invariance holds for gender. The participants' CS-SES-TC scores were positively correlated with their FACT-G scores and negatively correlated with their CES-D scores. The scales exhibited concurrent validity and discriminant validity. The CS-SES-TC had a Cronbach's α in the range of .97-.98.
conclusionThe CS-SES-TC had acceptable reliability and validity. Healthcare workers can use this scale for ongoing assessment of the cancer-related self-efficacy of cancer survivors.
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.