ArticlePloS one2025
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of The Resilience Scale for Kidney Transplantation (RS-KTPL) in a Chinese population.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to translate and validate The Resilience Scale for Kidney Transplantation (RS-KTPL) into Chinese and assess its reliability and validity among kidney transplant patients in China.
methodsWith authorization from the original authors, the RS-KTPL was translated following Brislin's translation model, including forward translation, back translation, author review, cross-cultural adaptation, and a pilot study, resulting in a Chinese version of the RS-KTPL. A total of 358 kidney transplant recipients were recruited through convenience sampling and completed the questionnaire. Statistical analyses included item analysis, content validity, structural validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability.
resultsItem analysis led to the removal of certain items that did not meet the criteria, resulting in a final version of the scale with 22 items across four dimensions. For content validity, the item-level content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.83 to 1.000, and the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.91, indicating good content fit. Structural validity was confirmed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, supporting a four-factor structure with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 64.913% and all factor loadings exceeding 0.5. Convergent and discriminant validity analyses showed that the composite reliability (CR) values ranged from 0.741 to 0.938, and the average variance extracted (AVE) values ranged from 0.5 to 0.704, with the square root of AVE being higher than the inter-factor correlation coefficients, indicating good internal consistency and discriminating ability. Reliability testing showed a Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.944 for the overall scale, with subscale Cronbach's α coefficients all above 0.696, and a split-half reliability of 0.891, demonstrating high internal consistency and stability of the scale.
conclusionThe Chinese version of the RS-KTPL exhibits good reliability and validity among kidney transplant patients in China and can be effectively used to assess psychological resilience in this population.
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.