ArticleBMC psychology2026
Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Health Behavior Motivation Scale(HBMS) for coronary heart disease patients in China.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth Behavior Motivation, a concept originating from psychology, examines the psychological forces underlying health behaviors. The current study aimed to cross-culturally adapt and validate the Health Behavior Motivation scale for coronary heart disease patients in China.
methodsA convenience sample of 400 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) was recruited from cardiovascular wards at two tertiary care hospitals in Shenyang, China, during the study period spanning August to October 2024. Statistical analyses were conducted using AMOS 24.0 and SPSS 25.0 software. The scale’s reliability was evaluated through three established methods: test-retest reliability, split-half reliability, and internal consistency assessment. Validity verification encompassed examinations of both structural validity and content validity.
resultsThe HBMS had a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.89, and the range of Cronbach’s α coefficient values for each dimension was 0.84–0.97. The scale’s test–retest reliability was 0.81, and its split-half reliability was 0.63. Five common factors with a cumulative variance contribution of 71.96% were retrieved from the exploratory factor analysis. In confirmatory factor analysis, the indicators were reported as follows: chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ2 / df) = 1.82, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.91, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.92, Incremental Fit Index ( IFI) = 0.92, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06 and the results of the model fit metrics were within the reference range.
conclusionThe HBMS is suitable for health behavior motivation measurement with acceptable validity and reliability, the HBMS can be applied in CHD patients in China.
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.