ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18).
Article in BMC psychiatry, 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.
- The correlation between resilience and mental health of adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrauma is a prevalent issue in public health, where individuals who experience physical injuries are also at risk of compromised mental health. Psychological resilience is considered a positive indicator that can predict the prognosis of trauma patients throughout their traumatic experiences. Currently, there is a lack of tools in China for measuring the psychological resilience of trauma patients. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18) into Chinese and to test its reliability and validity in China.
methodsThe Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18) was translated into a Chinese version suitable for the Chinese language environment using the Brislin translation model. A convenience sampling method was used to select 588 trauma patients as study subjects. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, 14-day test-retest reliability, and split-half reliability. Validity was examined through the content validity index, structural validity, and convergent validity. Structural validity was specifically evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsThe total variance explained by the single-factor model in the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the Chinese version of the tRS-18 was 62.048%, and the factor loading of each item exceeded 0.4. The results of the CFA indicated that the model demonstrated a favorable fit index (X
conclusionThe Chinese version of the tRS-18 has good validity and reliability and can be used as an assessment tool for trauma resilience in trauma patients.
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.