Cross-cultural adaptation, validity and reliability of the Chinese Version of Miller Behavioral Style Scale

Abstract

Background Health education basing on patients’ information-seeking styles can improve the effectiveness of health education and patients’ health outcomes. The Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS) is widely used to identify individual’s information-seeking styles, but the Chinese version is lacking. The study aim was to translate and culturally adapt the MBSS into Chinese version and test the content validity, construct validity and internal consistency reliability of the Chinese version of MBSS (C-MBSS). Methods The forward-back-translation procedure was adopted in the translation of the MBSS. Content validity was assessed in a panel of experts. In a sample of 1343 individuals including patients, patients’ caregivers, university students, and medical staff, reliability and construct validity were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and factor analysis. The measurement invariance across samples was tested using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). Floor and ceiling effects were checked. Results The C-MBSS achieved conceptual and semantic equivalence with the original scale. The item-level content validity index (I-CVI) of each item ranged from 0.78 to 1, and the averaging scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/ Ave) was 0.95. The exploratory factor analysis resulted in 2-factor assumption for each hypothetical threat-evoking scenario. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a good fit between theoretical model and data, which provided confirmatory evidence for the second-order factor structure of 2-factor solution (Monitoring and Blunting). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the Monitoring and Blunting sub-scales of the C-MBSS were 0.75 and 0.62 respectively. MGCFA results supported the measurement invariance for the Monitoring sub-scale of the C-MBSS across samples. No floor or ceiling effects occurred. Conclusions This study indicates that the C-MBSS has good content and construct validity. The Monitoring sub-scale of the C-MBSS had acceptable internal consistency reliability while the Blunting sub-scale had unsatisfactory one, which suggest that the Monitoring sub-scale of the C-MBSS can be used to identify individuals’ information-seeking styles in Chinese contexts across different populations.

A qualitative study on patients’ and health care professionals’ perspectives regarding care delivered during CIED operation

“…During the CIED surgery, monitors typically seek threat-relevant information to reduce their uncertainty and promote feelings of reassurance [ 60 ]. In contrast, blunters prefer less information and their anxiety may be increased when information is delivered too much [ 61 ]. Hence, it is not surprising that the conflicting results emerged about patient’s response to CIED surgery information.…”

Effects of pre-operative education tailored to information-seeking styles on pre-operative anxiety and depression among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A randomized controlled trial

“…When admitted to the hospital, the measurer assisted the participants to complete the Chinese Version of the Monitoring Subscale of the Miller Behavioral Style Scale (C-MMBSS) [ 28 ]. The data manager analyzed and saved participants’ C-MMBSS scores.…”

“…Information-seeking styles were evaluated using the C-MMBSS [ 28 ]. The C-MMBSS was translated and validated by our research team from the Miller behavioral style scale (MBSS) and has been verified to have good psychometric properties.…”

“…The C-MMBSS was translated and validated by our research team from the Miller behavioral style scale (MBSS) and has been verified to have good psychometric properties. This tool can identify individuals’ information-seeking styles in threatening medical situations in Chinese contexts [ 20 , 28 ]. The C-MMBSS consists of four hypothetical threat-evoking scenarios (1. visiting a dentist; 2. kidnapped by a terrorist organization; 3. in danger of unemployment; 4. on an airplane with technical problems).…”

“…The items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The total scores on the C-MMBSS scale range from 13 to 65; individuals who scored at least 51 points were considered monitors, while those who scored below 51 points were considered blunters [ 28 ].…”