Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of resilience scale specific to cancer: an item response theory analysis

Ye, Zeng Jie; Liang, Mu Zi; Zhang, Hao Wei; Li, Peng Fei; Ouyang, Xue Ren; Yu, Yuan Liang; Liu, Mei Ling; Qiu, Hong Zhong

doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1835-2

Cited by 44 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, no resilience scales have been formulated to be specific to patients with cancer, and the application of generic resilience instruments among cancer-specific populations has been criticized [5]. To address this issue, we developed a 25-item Resilience Scale Specific to Cancer (RS-SC-25) as an aid for nurses, physicians and social workers to assess the resilience levels of patients [6]; RS-SC-25 was then validated based on classic theory test, item response theory, and resilience-related empirical research [7,8]. The RS-SC-25 has Chinese and English versions and consists of five domains (generic element, benefit finding, support and coping, hope for the future, and meaning for existence); higher scores indicate higher resilience levels [6].…”

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

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%

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

“…Thus, the current study was designed to calculate the MCIDs of RS-SCs using distribution-and anchor-based methods. Based on previous ndings [4,[6][7][8][13][14], resilience was strongly associated with anxiety, depression, quality of life, and Allostatic Load Index. Thus, we postulated the following:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…However, no resilience scales have been formulated to be speci c to patients with cancer, and the application of generic resilience instruments among cancer-speci c populations has been criticized [5]. To address this issue, we developed a 25-item Resilience Scale Speci c to Cancer (RS-SC-25) as an aid for nurses, physicians and social workers to assess the resilience levels of patients [6]; RS-SC-25 was then validated based on classic theory test, item response theory, and resiliencerelated empirical research [7][8]. The RS-SC-25 has Chinese and English versions and consists of ve domains (generic element, bene t nding, support and coping, hope for the future, and meaning for existence); higher scores indicate higher resilience levels [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…We first assessed the two assumptions of IRT: unidimensionality and local independence [20]. Unidimensionality for the 12-item NRSS was previously shown in a bifactor model [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, the number of factors was identified by assessing the scree plot [23]. Unidimensionality was accepted if the first factor explained more than 20-40% of variance [24,25] and the ratio of the eigenvalues of the first to the second unrotated factor was greater than 3 [20]. Local independence refers to independence among responses across items conditioned on the corresponding latent trait [26]; its presence was accepted if the residual correlations for the items were smaller than 0.25 [27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonrestorative sleep scale: a reliable and valid short form of the traditional Chinese version

Fong

Wong

et al. 2020

Qual Life Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Previous research has suggested the essential unidimensionality of the 12-item traditional Chinese version of the Nonrestorative Sleep Scale (NRSS). This study aimed to develop a short form of the traditional Chinese version of the NRSS without compromising its reliability and validity. Methods Data were collected from 2 cross-sectional studies with identical target groups of adults residing in Hong Kong. An iterative Wald test was used to assess differential item functioning by gender. Based on the generalized partial credit model, we first obtained a shortened version such that further shortening would result in substantial sacrifice of test information and standard error of measurement. Another shortened version was obtained by the optimal test assembly (OTA). The two shortened versions were compared for test information, Cronbach's alpha, and convergent validity. Results Data from a total of 404 Chinese adults (60.0% female) who had completed the Chinese NRSS were gathered. All items were invariant by gender. A 6-item version was obtained beyond which the test performance substantially deteriorated, and a 9-item version was obtained by OTA. The 9-item version performed better than the 6-item version in test information and convergent validity. It had discrimination and difficulty indices ranging from 0.44 to 2.23 and − 7.58 to 2.13, respectively, and retained 92% of the test information of the original 12-item version. Conclusion The 9-item Chinese NRSS is a reliable and valid tool to measure nonrestorative sleep for epidemiological studies.

show abstract

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of resilience scale specific to cancer: an item response theory analysis

Abstract: Some problematic items should be refined and a short-form of RS-SC maybe feasible in clinical settings in order to reduce burden on patients. However, the generalizability of these findings warrants further investigations.

Cited by 44 publications

References 18 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

Nonrestorative sleep scale: a reliable and valid short form of the traditional Chinese version

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About