ArticleBMC psychology2026
The validation, reliability, and measurement invariance of the relationship sabotage scale in Chinese college students.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRelationship self-sabotage has been primarily examined in Western contexts, and its measurement in Chinese populations remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Relationship Sabotage Scale (RSS) among Chinese college students.
methodsTwo independent samples of Chinese college students with prior romantic experience were recruited from four universities in Jiangsu Province in 2024 (Sample 1: n = 550; Sample 2: n = 568). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure. Measurement invariance was tested across gender, only-child status, migration experience, left-behind experience, and family residence. Reliability and multiple forms of validity, including convergent, discriminant, and known-groups validity, were assessed.
resultsA three-factor structure-Defensiveness, Trust Difficulty, and Lack of Relationship Skills-was generally supported, with acceptable model fit overall (χ
conclusionsThese findings provide preliminary evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the RSS in a Chinese context. However, given the marginal model fit in one sample and variability in item-level performance, further validation in more diverse and representative samples is warranted. The scale may serve as a useful tool for assessing self-sabotaging tendencies in romantic relationships among Chinese college students.
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.