Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18).

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY BMC Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1186/s12888-024-06166-4
Shihan Li, Chunyan Hao, Jiaxin Ren
{"title":"Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18).","authors":"Shihan Li, Chunyan Hao, Jiaxin Ren","doi":"10.1186/s12888-024-06166-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trauma is a prevalent issue in public health, where individuals who experience physical injuries are also at risk of compromised mental health. Psychological resilience is considered a positive indicator that can predict the prognosis of trauma patients throughout their traumatic experiences. Currently, there is a lack of tools in China for measuring the psychological resilience of trauma patients. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18) into Chinese and to test its reliability and validity in China.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18) was translated into a Chinese version suitable for the Chinese language environment using the Brislin translation model. A convenience sampling method was used to select 588 trauma patients as study subjects. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, 14-day test-retest reliability, and split-half reliability. Validity was examined through the content validity index, structural validity, and convergent validity. Structural validity was specifically evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total variance explained by the single-factor model in the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the Chinese version of the tRS-18 was 62.048%, and the factor loading of each item exceeded 0.4. The results of the CFA indicated that the model demonstrated a favorable fit index (X<sup>2</sup>/df = 1.620; RMSEA = 0.046; SRMR = 0.026; NFI = 0.945; CFI = 0.978; GFI = 0.927; TLI = 0.975; IFI = 0.978). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the reliability index was 0.963, the test-retest reliability was 0.970, and the split-half reliability was 0.964, which were all within the reference value range.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Chinese version of the tRS-18 has good validity and reliability and can be used as an assessment tool for trauma resilience in trauma patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":"24 1","pages":"743"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520583/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06166-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Trauma is a prevalent issue in public health, where individuals who experience physical injuries are also at risk of compromised mental health. Psychological resilience is considered a positive indicator that can predict the prognosis of trauma patients throughout their traumatic experiences. Currently, there is a lack of tools in China for measuring the psychological resilience of trauma patients. The aim of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18) into Chinese and to test its reliability and validity in China.

Methods: The Trauma Resiliency Scale (tRS-18) was translated into a Chinese version suitable for the Chinese language environment using the Brislin translation model. A convenience sampling method was used to select 588 trauma patients as study subjects. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, 14-day test-retest reliability, and split-half reliability. Validity was examined through the content validity index, structural validity, and convergent validity. Structural validity was specifically evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Results: The total variance explained by the single-factor model in the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the Chinese version of the tRS-18 was 62.048%, and the factor loading of each item exceeded 0.4. The results of the CFA indicated that the model demonstrated a favorable fit index (X2/df = 1.620; RMSEA = 0.046; SRMR = 0.026; NFI = 0.945; CFI = 0.978; GFI = 0.927; TLI = 0.975; IFI = 0.978). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the reliability index was 0.963, the test-retest reliability was 0.970, and the split-half reliability was 0.964, which were all within the reference value range.

Conclusion: The Chinese version of the tRS-18 has good validity and reliability and can be used as an assessment tool for trauma resilience in trauma patients.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创伤复原力量表(tRS-18)中文版的跨文化改编和验证。
背景:创伤是公共卫生领域的一个普遍问题,经历过身体伤害的人也面临着心理健康受损的风险。心理复原力被认为是一个积极的指标,可以预测创伤患者在整个创伤经历中的预后。目前,中国缺乏测量创伤患者心理复原力的工具。本研究旨在将创伤复原力量表(tRS-18)翻译成中文并进行跨文化改编,同时测试其在中国的信度和效度:方法:采用布里斯林翻译模式将创伤复原力量表(tRS-18)翻译成适合中国语言环境的中文版。采用便利抽样法选取了 588 名创伤患者作为研究对象。信度采用克朗巴赫α系数、14天测试-再测信度和分半信度进行评估。效度通过内容效度指数、结构效度和聚合效度进行检验。通过探索性因子分析(EFA)和确认性因子分析(CFA)对结构效度进行了具体评估:结果:在中文版 tRS-18 的探索性因素分析(EFA)中,单因素模型解释的总方差为 62.048%,每个项目的因素负荷均超过 0.4。CFA结果表明,模型的拟合指数良好(X2/df = 1.620;RMSEA = 0.046;SRMR = 0.026;NFI = 0.945;CFI = 0.978;GFI = 0.927;TLI = 0.975;IFI = 0.978)。信度指标的 Cronbach's α 系数为 0.963,重测信度为 0.970,分半信度为 0.964,均在参考值范围内:tRS-18中文版具有良好的效度和信度,可作为创伤患者创伤复原力的评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Openness to discussing mental health is negatively associated with suicidal ideation among South Korean college students. Blunted niacin skin flushing response with subtype-specific clinical associations in adolescent bipolar disorder. The correlations between napping and subjective sleep and daytime functioning in Chinese insomnia patients: a large-scale real-world study. A study on the patient journey map of inpatients with mood disorders. Association between serum concentrations of psychotropic drugs and seizure quality during ECT treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1