ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Psychometric validation of the revised Chinese version of the Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale in psychiatric outpatients.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To refine the Chinese version of the Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale (DARS) and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Revised Chinese DARS (RC-DARS) in a large sample of first-visit psychiatric outpatients. Methods: The study was conducted in two sequential phases at a specialized psychiatric hospital. In Phase I (n = 277), the existing Chinese DARS underwent semantic and cultural refinement in accordance with ISPOR and TRAPD guidelines, incorporating cognitive interviews and back-translation procedures. In Phase II (n = 788), the RC-DARS was administered alongside the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and the MMPI Suicide Ideation Subscale (MMPI-SI). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using common-factor extraction and the WLSMV estimator for ordinal indicators. Internal consistency, gender-based measurement invariance, and convergent validity were evaluated. Results: Exploratory analyses supported a four-factor domain structure. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated good model fit for the domain-based model (χ²/df = 3.81, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05), with substantially superior fit relative to an alternative reward-processing model. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.95; McDonald's ω = 0.96). Multi-group analyses supported configural, metric, and scalar invariance across gender (ΔCFI < 0.01). RC-DARS total scores were significantly negatively correlated with depressive symptoms (r = -0.443), anxiety (r = -0.317), sleep disturbance (r = -0.494), and suicide risk (r = -0.312) (all p <.001). Individuals with severe depressive symptoms exhibited significantly lower RC-DARS scores than those below the clinical threshold. Conclusions: The RC-DARS demonstrates robust psychometric properties in a first-visit outpatient sample. The revision primarily enhances semantic precision and structural differentiation without materially altering score distributions. The scale may serve as a refined instrument for dimensional assessment of anhedonia in similar clinical contexts, pending longitudinal and multi-site validation.
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.