Development of a Chinese version of the Stress Adaption Scale and the assessment of its reliability and validity among Chinese patients with multimorbidity
Yujia Fu,Jingjie Wu,Binyu Zhao,Chuyang Lai,Erxu Xue,Dan Wang,Manjun Wang,Leiwen Tang,Jing Shao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3724/zdxbyxb-2022-0721
2023-06-25
Abstract:Objectives: To develop a Chinese version of the Stress Adaption Scale (SAS) and to assess its reliability and validity among Chinese patients with multimorbidity. Methods: The Brislin model was used to translate, synthesize, back-translate, and cross culturally adapt the SAS. A total of 323 multimorbidity patients selected by convenience sampling method from four hospitals in Zhejiang province. The critical ratio method, total question correlation method, and graded response model (item characteristic curve and item discrimination) were used for item analysis. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and split-half reliability were used for the reliability analysis. Content validity analysis, structural validity analysis, and criterion association validity analysis were performed by expert scoring method, confirmatory factor analysis, and Pearson correlation coefficient method, respectively. Results: The Chinese version of the SAS contained 2 dimensions of resilience and thriving, with a total of 10 items. In the item analysis, the critical ratio method showed that the critical ratio of all items was greater than 3.0 (P<0.001); the correlation coefficient method showed that the Pearson correlation coefficients for all items exceeded 0.4 (P<0.01). The graded response model showed that items of the revised scale exhibited distinct item characteristic curves and all items had discrimination parameters exceeding 1.0. In the reliability analysis, Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the revised Chinese version of the SAS scale was 0.849, and the split-half reliability was 0.873. In the validity analysis, the item-level content validity index and scale-level content validity index both exceeded 0.80. In the confirmatory factor analysis, the revised two-factor model showed satisfactory fit indices (χ2/df=3.115, RMSEA=0.081, RMR=0.046, GFI=0.937, AGFI=0.898, CFI=0.936, TLI=0.915). In the criterion-related validity analysis, the Chinese version of the SAS score was negatively correlated with the Perceived Stress Scale and the Treatment Burden Questionnaire, with correlation coefficients of －0.592 and －0.482, respectively (both P<0.01). Conclusions: The Chinese version of the SAS has good reliability and validity, which can be used to evaluate the stress adaption capacity among multimorbidity patients in China, and provides a reference for developing individualized health management measures.