Observational studyScientific reports2025
Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Patient Self-Advocacy Scale using classical test theory and item response theory.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Development and Application of a Psychological Expectations Scale for Patients With Middle- and Late-Stage Cervical Cancer in China.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2026Article
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
backgroundPatient self-advocacy plays a crucial role in improving cancer patients' quality of life, but there is no validated instrument to assess this concept among Chinese head and neck cancer patients. This study aimed to cross-culturally translate the Patient Self-Advocacy Scale (PSAS) and evaluate its psychometric properties using classical test theory and item response theory.
methodsThe PSAS underwent cross-cultural adaptation based on Brislin's translation model and a cross-sectional survey of 302 head and neck cancer patients at a tertiary hospital in Tianjin was conducted from November 2023 to August 2024. Classical test theory was used for item analysis and validation of reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability) and validity (content validity, construct validity). Item response theory was applied to evaluate model fit, reliability, item difficulty, and measurement invariance.
resultsClassical test theory analysis demonstrated good item discrimination with item-total correlations ranging from 0.776 to 0.942 and critical ratios from 13.269 to 33.170 (p < 0.05), as well as good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.942 for the total scale) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.840 for the total scale, p < 0.001). I-CVI values ranged from 0.80 to 1.00, with an S-CVI of 0.95. The three-factor model demonstrated good fit (χ
conclusionThe Chinese version of PSAS demonstrates satisfactory psychometric properties among head and neck cancer patients and provides healthcare providers with a tool to assess patients' self-advocacy, potentially facilitating patient-centered care and self-management in clinical practice and improving patients' health and quality of life outcomes.
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.