ArticleBMC psychology2026
Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and preliminary psychometric investigation of the Chinese version of the digital intervention barriers scale-7 (DIBS-7) among 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and preliminarily examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Digital Intervention Barriers Scale-7 (DIBS-7) among college students.
methodsBased on Brislin's model, the DIBS-7 was translated through forward translation and back translation, and its cross-cultural adaptation was completed through expert consultation and a pilot test. Psychometric testing was conducted on a sample of 449 Chinese college students. The reliability of the Chinese version of the DIBS-7 was evaluated in terms of internal consistency, split-half reliability, and test-retest reliability, while its validity was assessed in terms of content validity and structural validity.
resultsOne common factor with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 58.433% was identified by exploratory factor analysis (EFA). According to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the single-factor model suited the data well. The split-half reliability coefficient was 0.909, the test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.825, and the internal consistency reliability as determined by Cronbach's α was 0.900.
conclusionThe Chinese version of the DIBS-7 showed acceptable preliminary psychometric properties among Chinese college students and may be used to assess perceived barriers to DMHI use. Further studies are needed to examine whether it can predict actual intervention engagement, adherence, satisfaction, sustained use, or dropout.
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.