ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Further validation of the Chinese short Warwick Edinburgh mental wellbeing scale in the adult population of Macau: an application of classic test theory and item response theory.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mental well-being and depression among university students in Palestine under the war.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- The status and factors associated with the mental well-being of university students in China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- The categorisation of the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale scores: an exploration from an epidemiological perspective.Frontiers in psychiatry · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to validate the Chinese version of the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) by employing both Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) approaches. Methods: Data were gathered through a population-based, cross-sectional health survey using an online self-reported questionnaire. The scale underwent Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Measurement invariance by gender was assessed using standard procedures. The Grade Response Model (GRM) of the IRT analysis was applied to the data, estimating the discrimination and difficulty parameters at different thresholds. The results were analyzed both graphically and through parameter values. Results: Factor analyses confirmed that a single-factor model of the scale fit the data well, with an overall Eigenvalue of 4.55, explaining 65.0% of the total variance. Model fit statistics were slightly better for males than for females. Measurement invariance examinations also yielded satisfactory Goodness-of-Fit statistics (CFI = 0.940, TFI = 0.910, RMSEA < 0.001) with minimal changes in item loadings and indicator threshold patterns across groups. The IRT results demonstrated high discrimination parameters, ranging from 2.17 to 3.67, and nearly evenly distributed difficulty parameters, ranging from -2.23 to 1.77. Graphical examinations indicated good performance of the scale across the latent trait continuum. Conclusions: The results indicated that, as a single-factor scale, the instrument exhibits good quality at both the scale and item levels. It has high discriminative power and an adequate response set for assessing a full range of the latent trait, namely mental well-being.
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.