ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Translation, reliability, and validity of the chinese face-to-face cooperation evaluation scale short version (FACES) in community health and long-term care providers.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith China’s rapidly aging population, there is an urgent need to improve collaboration between community health and long-term care providers. However, no validated tool exists to assess the cooperation between these groups in the Chinese context. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the FAce-to-face Cooperation Evaluation scale Short version (FACES) into Chinese and assess its psychometric properties among community health and long-term care providers.
methodsFrom July to September 2024, FACES was translated, back-translated, culturally adapted, and reviewed by experts. A total of 680 participants were surveyed to assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese version. Validity was assessed using the content validity index (CVI) to determine content validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (n = 342), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (n = 338) to assess structural validity, and criterion-related validity to determine the ability to correlate with an external criterion. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s α coefficient to evaluate internal consistency, split-half reliability to determine scale consistency, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess test-retest reliability.
resultsThe Chinese FACES consists of seven items. The I-CVI ranged from 0.875 to 1.000, with an S-CVI of 0.857. EFA revealed a single factor with a cumulative variance contribution of 65.125%. The factor loading range across all items varied from 0.640 to 0.812. CFA showed a satisfactory final model fit: chi-square (χ²) = 26.539, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.978, Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.052, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.989, and Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.978. The Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.907, indicating strong internal consistency. Split-half reliability analysis yielded Cronbach’s [Formula: see text] values of 0.905 and 0.777 for the first four items and last three items, respectively, suggesting acceptable internal consistency. The ICC was 0.982, demonstrating excellent test-retest reliability.
conclusionsThe Chinese version of the FACES demonstrates good reliability and validity, making it suitable for assessing the level of collaboration between community health and long-term care providers 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.