ArticleBMC psychology2025
Evaluating a new scale for infertility psychological distress: psychometric evidence from China.
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 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.
- 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
- Article
- Social and emotional skills and different bullying behavior of students: serial mediating role of perceived relationships with teachers and sense of belonging at school.BMC psychology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChina currently does not have a suitable tool to measure infertility-related psychological distress in a culturally relevant manner. Therefore, this study sought to develop and validate a scale specifically designed for the Chinese context, focusing on the unique cultural and psychological experiences of Chinese women undergoing IVF-ET treatment.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was used for scale development. The preliminary scale was based on a previous Grounded theory study and existing literature. Content validity was assessed using the Delphi method. Psychometric testing involved 600 women undergoing IVF-ET treatment in Hubei, China. Item analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted for scale refinement and validity assessment.
resultsThe final scale consists of 25 items across 2 dimensions and 6 sub-dimensions: Distress of disrupting the former self (distress of self-worth questioning, distress of strained family relationships, distress of female image deficit) and Distress linked to the struggling present self (distress of inadequate reproductive self-efficiency, distress of maintaining family relationships, distress of social identity expansion). CFA confirmed a good fit for the 6-factor model. Cronbach's alpha was 0.944 for the total scale, and 0.856 to 0.925 for the dimensions. Content validity was strong (I-CVI = 0.80-1.0, S-CVI = 0.98). The scale showed good criterion-related validity with a significant correlation (r = 0.528, p < 0.001) to the Kessler-6.
conclusionThe Infertility Psychological Distress Scale demonstrates strong reliability and validity, accurately capturing the psychological distress experienced by women undergoing assisted reproduction in the Chinese cultural context. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.