Development and psychometric analysis of the 10-item resilience scale specific to cancer: A multidimensional item response theory analysis

Ye, Zeng Jie; Zhang, Zhang; Tang, Ying; Liang, Jian; Sun, Zhe; Zhang, Xiao Ying; Liang, Mu Zi; Yu, Yuan Liang

doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2019.06.005

Cited by 45 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…RS-SC-25 has good psychometric properties and could be used as a means of establishing a symptomatic threshold to guide the initiation of psychosocial or pharmacological intervention. A short 10-item version (RS-SC-10) with higher discriminative items has been developed according to multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) to reduce the scale burden on the patients; its potential in outpatient wards and communities has been confirmed [9]. However, the responsiveness of both RS-SCs (RS-SC-25 and RS-SC-10), that is, its ability to measure changes over time, has not been evaluated, raising concerns on the use of this instrument in routine practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The original RS-SC is a 25-item resilience instrument specific to cancer (RS-SC-25) that has the five domains of generic element, benefit finding, support and coping, hope for the future, and meaning for existence [6]. A 10-item RS-SC (RS-SC-10) was developed later by MIRT analysis [9]. The two scales are both rated based on a fivepoint Likert scale, with higher scores indicating higher resilience levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Minimum clinical important difference for resilience scale specific to cancer: a prospective analysis

Zhang

Tang

et al. 2020

Health Qual Life Outcomes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The minimum clinical important differences (MCIDs) of resilience instruments in patients with cancer have not been comprehensively described. This study was designed to evaluate MCIDs of 10-item and 25-item resilience scales specific to cancer (RS-SC-10 and RS-SC-25). Methods From June 2015 to December 2018, RS-SCs were longitudinally measured in 765 patients with different cancer diagnoses at baseline (T0) and 3 months later (T1). The EORTC QLQ-C30, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Allostatic Load Index were measured concurrently as anchors. Anchor-based methods (linear regression, within-group), distribution-based methods(within-group), and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs, within-subject) were performed to evaluate the MCIDs. Results 623 of 765 (84.1%) patients had paired RS-SCs scores. Moderate correlations were identified between the change in RS-SCs and change in anchors (r = 0.38–0.44, all p < 0.001). Linear regression estimated + 8.9 and − 6.7 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and + 3.4 and − 2.5 for RS-SC-10. Distribution-based methods estimated + 9.9 and − 9.9 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and + 4.0 and − 4.0 for RS-SC-10. ROC estimated + 5.5 and − 4.5 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and + 2.0 and − 1.5 for RS-SC-10. Conclusions The most reliable MCID is around 5 points for RS-SC-25 and 2 points for RS-SC-10. RS-SCs are more responsive to the worsening status of resilience in patients with cancer and these estimates could be useful in future resilience-based intervention trials.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimum clinical important difference for resilience scale specific to cancer: a prospective analysis

Zhang

Tang

et al. 2020

Health Qual Life Outcomes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scores for RS-SC-25 range from 25 to 125, and for RS-SC-10, from 10 to 50. The Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability of RS-SC-25 are 0.83 and 0.87, respectively [6,9]. The Cronbach's α of RS-SC-10 is 0.86.…”

Section: Rs-scmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The original RS-SC is a 25-item resilience instrument speci c to cancer (RS-SC-25) that has the ve domains of generic element, bene t nding, support and coping, hope for the future, and meaning for existence [6]. A 10-item RS-SC (RS-SC-10) was developed later by MIRT analysis [9]. The two scales are both rated based on a ve-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating higher resilience levels.…”

Section: Rs-scmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RS-SC-25 has good psychometric properties and could be used as a means of establishing a symptomatic threshold to guide the initiation of psychosocial or pharmacological intervention. A short 10-item version (RS-SC-10) with higher discriminative items has been developed according to multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) to reduce the scale burden on the patients; its potential in outpatient wards and communities has been con rmed [9]. However, the responsiveness of both RS-SCs (RS-SC-25…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Minimum Clinical Important Difference for Resilience Scale Specific to Cancer: A Prospective Analysis

Zhang

Tang

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Background: The minimum clinical important differences (MCIDs) of resilience instruments in patients with cancer have not been comprehensively described. This study was designed to evaluate MCIDs of 10-item and 25-item resilience scales specific to cancer (RS-SC-10 and RS-SC-25).Methods: From June 2015 to December 2018, RS-SCs were longitudinally measured in 765 patients with different cancer diagnoses at baseline (T0) and 3 months later (T1). The EORTC QLQ-C30, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Allostatic Load Index were measured concurrently as anchors. Anchor-based methods (linear regression, within-group), distribution-based methods(within-group), and receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs, within-subject) were performed to evaluate the MCIDs.Results: 623 of 765 (84.1%) patients had paired RS-SCs scores. Moderate correlations were identified between the change in RS-SCs and change in anchors (r= 0.38-0.44, all p<0.001). Linear regression estimated +8.9 and -6.7 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and +3.4 and -2.5 for RS-SC-10. Distribution-based methods estimated +9.9 and -9.9 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and +4.0 and -4.0 for RS-SC-10. ROC estimated +5.5 and -4.5 as the MCIDs of RS-SC-25, and +2.0 and -1.5 for RS-SC-10.Conclusions: The most reliable MCID is around 5 points for RS-SC-25 and 2 points for RS-SC-10. RS-SCs are more responsive to the worsening status of resilience in patients with cancer and these estimates could be useful in future resilience-based intervention trials.

show abstract

Development and validation of the Convalescence Symptom Assessment Scale for EsophageCtomy patients

Ge,

Ma,

et al. 2024

Nursing Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimA specific, valid and reliable measure is much needed to dynamically assess the recovery of symptoms in oesophagectomy patients. This study describes developing and validating the Convalescent Symptom Assessment Scale for oesophagectomy patients (CSAS_EC).DesignAn instrument development and cross‐sectional validation study was conducted.MethodsThis study consists of two components: instrument development and psychometric tests. In instrument development, the literature review, qualitative interviews, Delphi method expert consultation and face validation were used to develop and refine scale content. In psychometric tests, the clinical test version scale was used to conduct a cross‐sectional in the thoracic surgery department from 17 June to 20 November 2022. The Classical Test Theory and Multidimensional Item Response Theory (MIRT) analyses examined psychometric properties.ResultsIn instrument development, literature review (n = 20), qualitative interviews (n = 21), expert consultation (n = 12) and pre‐survey (n = 15) led to the development of the clinical test version scale. In psychometric tests, a total of 331 participants were enrolled. Confirmatory factor analysis and MIRT analysis verified that a model with 28 items in four dimensions was good. The four dimensions were early recovery symptoms, late recovery symptoms, persistent present symptoms and psychosocial symptoms. The Cronbach's α is 0.827. The validity and reliability were demonstrated to be acceptable.ConclusionsThe CSAS_EC scale can be used as a tool to evaluate the recovery status of oesophagectomy patients.

show abstract

Development and psychometric analysis of the 10-item resilience scale specific to cancer: A multidimensional item response theory analysis

Cited by 45 publications

References 25 publications

Minimum clinical important difference for resilience scale specific to cancer: a prospective analysis

Minimum clinical important difference for resilience scale specific to cancer: a prospective analysis

Minimum Clinical Important Difference for Resilience Scale Specific to Cancer: A Prospective Analysis

Development and validation of the Convalescence Symptom Assessment Scale for EsophageCtomy patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About