ArticleBMC psychology2025
Psychometric validation of the Chinese version of the perceived stress scale-10 among pregnant women.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStress during pregnancy can significantly impact maternal and fetal health. Accurately assessing perceived stress is crucial for early intervention and improved health outcomes. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) is a widely used tool for measuring perceived stress. However, the Chinese version (CPSS-10) has not yet been validated among pregnant women in mainland China. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the CPSS-10 in this population.
methodsThe study was conducted in a Chinese hospital between February and August 2024, using a convenience sample of pregnant women. The CPSS-10 was evaluated using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses. EFA employed principal component analysis and varimax rotation, identifying factors with eigenvalues > 1 and factor loadings > 0.50. CFA assessed model fit using χ2/df, Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Convergent and discriminant validity were examined, and concurrent validity was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. The analyses were conducted using Amos 23.0 and IBM SPSS Statistics 29.
resultsA total of 428 pregnant Chinese women participated in the study. EFA revealed two factors, which together accounted for 59.869% of the variance. Item loadings ranged from 0.658 to 0.833. CFA results confirmed an acceptable fit for the two-factor model, with χ2/df = 3.789 (less than 5), p < 0.001, IFI = 0.892, TLI = 0.855, CFI = 0.890, and RMSEA = 0.116. Convergent validity was supported by average variance extracted (0.434–0.558) and composite reliability (0.754–0.883). Discriminant validity was established, and internal consistency was acceptable, with values ranging from 0.749 to 0.881. A significant negative correlation with perceived social support also supported concurrent validity. 52.4% of women reported moderate to high perceived stress levels (score ≥ 14).
conclusionThe CPSS-10 demonstrates strong psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable tool for assessing perceived stress among pregnant women in mainland China. Its use may aid in identifying stress-related risk during pregnancy and guide timely psychological support.
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.