ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the Perceived Emotional Expression Scale for adolescents.
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 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.
- Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the abbreviated technology anxiety scale among older patients with stroke: a translation and validation study.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Expressed emotion, as a crucial indicator of the family environment, has been proven to be a highly accurate psychosocial predictor of psychiatric relapse. At present, there is no standardized assessment tool to evaluate family-expressed emotions from the perspective of adolescents. This study aims to introduce the PEES-GAP scale into Chinese and assess its reliability and validity among general adolescent populations in China. Methods: This study first used a modified Brislin model to translate the PEES-GAP scale into Chinese. Subsequently, six experts in related fields were invited to assess the Item-level content validity index (I-CVI) of the translated scale. Using convenience sampling, 827 adolescents meeting the inclusion criteria were recruited from two secondary schools and two universities in Shandong Province and Liaoning Province, China. The reliability of the scale was assessed through internal consistency, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability. To examine the construct validity of the Chinese version of the PEES-GAP, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first conducted, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to further assess its construct validity. Results: Based on retaining the original 19 items of the scale, the final C-PEES-GAP demonstrated excellent psychometric properties, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.928. The I-CVI for each subscale ranged from 0.830 to 1.000, with split-half reliability of 0.855 and test-retest reliability of 0.964. The three-factor exploratory factor model explained 59.295% of the total variance, indicating a robust factor structure. The fit indices obtained from CFA included: CMIN/DF = 2.791, RMSEA = 0.077, AGFI = 0.832, TLI = 0.924, IFI = 0.935, CFI = 0.934, GFI = 0.869, and PGFI = 0.677. Conclusion: Following rigorous translation and validation procedures, the PEES-GAP has been adapted for use in China, demonstrating robust psychometric properties. It has emerged as a valid tool for assessing perceived family emotional expression among the general adolescent population in China. Furthermore, this scale may also serve as a crucial instrument for researchers in the fields of psychology and mental health to conduct relevant research, as well as for clinical professionals to develop targeted intervention strategies addressing adolescents' emotional issues.
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.