ArticlePloS one2024
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Benefit Finding Questionnaire for people with mental disorders.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing benefit finding and psychological well-being in depression care: a quasi-experimental study of group psychoeducation in Chinese adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
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 (BF) is correlated with mental health and recovery, and its presence will contribute to the recovery of patients with mental disorders. Most of the current tools for assessing BF in patients with somatic disorders are not adequate for patients with mental disorders. The present study proposes to introduce the Benefit Finding Questionnaire for People with Mental Disorders and to validate its psychometric properties.
methodsThe Beaton translation model was used to translate and cross-culturally adjust the Japanese version of the Benefit Finding Questionnaire for People with Mental Disorders. A survey of 514 people with mental disorders was conducted from January 2022 to October 2022 using a general information questionnaire and a translated Chinese version of the Benefit Finding Questionnaire for People with Mental Disorders (BFQ-C) using a convenience sampling method. The quality of the questionnaire was examined in terms of item analysis, reliability, and validity.
resultsThe results of the item analysis showed that all items met the requirements. The interrater agreement of the BFQ-C was good, with an interrater agreement = 0.714; the values of the item-level content validity index ranged from 0.75 to 1.00; and the average of all item-level content validity index on the scale = 0.958. Exploratory factor analysis extracted three main factors "change in relationship with others," "change in spirituality," and "change in values and thinking styles"-and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 57.70%. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis were χ2/df of 2.194, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation of 0.075, and comparative fit index of 0.919, indicating that the model fitted well. The questionnaire had a Cronbach' alpha of 0.936, a split reliability of 0.956, and a retest reliability of 0.939.
conclusionThe BFQ-C demonstrated good reliability and validity, and can be used to assess the BF level of people with mental disorders (e.g., anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders) in China.
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.