ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the patient self-advocacy scale among colorectal cancer patients.
Article in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient self-advocacy is crucial with respect to patients' ability to participate in health care decision-making and express their individual needs and preferences, thus facilitating the establishment of better doctor-patient relationships. However, effective and concise assessment tools that can be used among cancer patients in China are lacking. Objectives: This study aims to adapt and validate a Chinese version of the Patient Self-Advocacy Scale (PSAS) for use among colorectal cancer patients. Method: The Chinese version of the PSAS was translated on the basis of the Brislin translation model. From March to August 2024, 364 colorectal cancer patients were selected from a tertiary cancer hospital through random sampling. Item analysis was conducted by reference to the critical ratio (CR) and item-total correlation; reliability was evaluated in terms of Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the test-retest method; and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to test the construct validity of the scale. Results: The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the Chinese version of the PSAS was 0.817 (0.703-0.876 for each dimension), and an excellent test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.996 was obtained ( Discussion: The adapted Chinese version of the PSAS exhibits good psychometric properties, thus making it a suitable tool for assessing the self-advocacy ability of colorectal cancer patients. This tool can serve as an effective assessment method that can support efforts to obtain a clinical understanding patients' levels of self-advocacy and optimize doctor-patient communication approaches.
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.