ArticleBMC public health2024
Chinese version of the Physical Resilience Scale (PRS): reliability and validity test based on Rasch analysis.
Article in BMC public health, 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.
- Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the BENEFITS-CCCSAT based on CTT and IRT: a cross-sectional design translation and validation study.Frontiers in public health · 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
backgroundPhysical resilience is known to minimize the adverse outcomes of health stressors for older people. However, validated instruments that assess physical resilience in older adults are rare. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to translate the Physical Resilience Scale (PRS) into Chinese and to validate its psychometric properties in a population of community-dwelling older adults following SARS-CoV-2 infection.
methodsThis study used a cross-sectional design and translated the Physical Resilience Scale into Chinese. A total of 426 older adults who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection were chosen for assessment through convenience sampling. The measurement data were analyzed using the Rasch analysis.
resultsRasch analysis indicates that the Physical Resilience Scale demonstrates excellent reliability, validity, and unidimensionality. The Infit MNSQ and Outfit MNSQ of each entry were 0.77 ~ 1.19, and the degree of fit of each entry to the scale was good. Person and item separation reliability support the internal consistency of the studied samples and PRS items.
conclusionsThe Physical Resilience Scale has good reliability and is suitable for the assessment of physical resilience tests in older people. However, the overall difficulty of the scale is not suitable for older adults of all ability ranges, and it is possible to add higher and lower difficulty items and adjust the difficulty spacing between items in a later study.
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.