ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2026
Assessing validity and reliability of the Benefit Finding Scale in Italian people with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Benefit Finding Scale (BFS) is a 17-item measure assessing the perception of positive contributions to one's life deriving from stressful and life-threatening conditions such as illnesses. We aimed to investigate construct validity (structural validity, measurement invariance between sub-samples, and convergent/divergent validity) and reliability (internal consistency) of the Italian version of the BFS in persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and their caregivers.
methodsWe used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity in terms of the proposed three-factor structure of the BFS. We performed multi-group CFA to assess measurement invariance between PwMS and their caregivers. To assess convergent/divergent validity, we calculated correlations of the BFS subscales with instruments measuring affect (PANAS), life satisfaction (SWLS), social support (MSPSS), depression (BDI-II), and quality of life (SF-36 and MSQoL-54). To appraise internal consistency, we calculated Cronbach's alpha.
resultsA total of 1359 PwMS and their caregivers completed the study. The three-factor structure of the BFS showed good fit (RMSEA 0.06; CFI 0.92; SRMR 0.05). Configural, metric and scalar invariance were confirmed. Convergent/divergent validity was supported. The BFS showed good internal consistency for 'Acceptance and adjustment' (alpha 0.82), 'Family relations and sense of connectedness' (alpha 0.84) and 'Personal growth and authenticity' (alpha 0.85).
conclusionsResults support the BFS as a valid and invariant three-factor measure of benefit finding among Italian PwMS and their caregivers. This scale use in clinical practice could help health professionals track participants' experience of positive changes under adverse circumstances, as assets in managing stress and promoting illness adjustment.
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.