ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
The Chinese version of Selection, Optimization, and Compensation Questionnaire: psychometric properties among adolescent students.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study established the reliability and validity of the Selection, Optimization, and Compensation Questionnaire in a sample of senior secondary school students in China. Methods: The data for this study were sourced from 1,080 students from multiple senior secondary schools using the SOC Questionnaire and the Learning Engagement Scale. This study conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The factor structure analysis of the psychometric properties of SOC Questionnaire were examined on reliability, convergent validity, concurrent criterion validity, and incremental validity. Results: The EFA results suggested that a three-factor solution was most appropriate for the SOC Questionnaire. The three-factor CFA model of this study calculated correlations different from what was published with an American sample of adolescents by the questionnaire developers. The reliability coefficients (Cronbach's Conclusion: The 17-item, 3-factor SOC Questionnaire demonstrated strong reliability and validity, thus offering a new multidimensional of the SOC Questionnaire to evaluate intentional self-regulation among adolescents in schools.
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.