2023
DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2023.2188535
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Version of Robot Anxiety Scale in Chinese Adults

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 46 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Construct validity was evaluated by comparing the RAS with 2 other anxiety measures, all showing correlations of <0.30. Cai et al [ 62 ] translated the scale from Japanese to Chinese and assessed its comprehensibility and item content validity. Their study included a CFA that confirmed the RAS’s structural validity (chi square–to–df ratio=3.26; SRMR=0.02; CFI=0.99; GFI=0.96; TLI=0.98; RMSEA=0.06), and correlations for construct validity indicated good construct validity (absolute values of r ranged from 0.42 to 0.81).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Construct validity was evaluated by comparing the RAS with 2 other anxiety measures, all showing correlations of <0.30. Cai et al [ 62 ] translated the scale from Japanese to Chinese and assessed its comprehensibility and item content validity. Their study included a CFA that confirmed the RAS’s structural validity (chi square–to–df ratio=3.26; SRMR=0.02; CFI=0.99; GFI=0.96; TLI=0.98; RMSEA=0.06), and correlations for construct validity indicated good construct validity (absolute values of r ranged from 0.42 to 0.81).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%