ArticleBMC psychology2025
The adaptation of the infertility distress scale into Chinese: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity.
Article in BMC psychology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and problemWomen with infertility frequently experience unique psychological challenges. However, the commonly used universal distress scales may not adequately represent their actual psychological state.
objectiveThis study focused on the translation and cultural adaptation of Infertility Distress Scale (IDS) to Chinese, and the subsequent evaluation of its validity and reliability.
methodsUsing Brislin translation model, the IDS was translated and culturally adapted for Chinese women. Then, a questionnaire survey was conducted with 592 infertile women using convenient sampling for assessing whether our translated Chinese IDS version was valid and reliable.
resultsThis Chinese IDS version included four dimensions involving 23 items. The item-content validity index (I-CVI) was 0.90-1.00, with the Scale-CVI for Universal Agreement (S-CVI/UA) of 0.91. Additionally, the Scale-CVI for Average (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.99 on average. Upon exploratory factor analysis, four common factors were identified, which explained 68.08% of variance. Moreover, a good fit was obtained by confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, the correlation coefficient between the subjective experience dimension and the Kessler 10 Psychological Distress Scale was 0.64, and the correlation coefficient between the Infertility Distress Scale and the Fertility Problem Inventory was 0.68. The overall scale reliability (Cronbach’s α) was 0.95.
conclusionWhile the validated Chinese IDS offers significant insights into infertility-related distress, its applicability should consider demographic variances and the contextual limitations of the study, advocating for caution in generalizing findings across broader populations.
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.