Jun Tian1, Jin Sheng Hong. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350004, Fujian Province, China. tianjunfjmu@126.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aim to investigate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Resilience Scale (RS-14) and to determine the cutoff score of the RS-14 for screening Chinese cancer patients with low resilience. METHODS: The current study was divided into two studies. In the first study, we randomly selected 625 people and obtained their scores in the Chinese version of the RS-14 and SF-36 using cross-sectional survey. We then calculated the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the RS-14. In the second study, we selected 970 hospital cancer patients diagnosed during 2010 to 2011 and assessed for their resilience once and for anxiety, depression, and quality of life on two occasions. We determined the cutoff score of the RS-14 based on the maximum Youden Index, with the scores of anxiety and depression as gold standards. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients for inter-items were in the range of 0.23 to 0.68 (P < 0.001), whereas those for the item-scale were in the range of 0.62 to 0.82 (P < 0.001). Two factors represent the factor structure of the RS-14. The correlation coefficient between the RS-14 and SF-36 scores was 0.82 (P < 0.001). The split-half reliability and test-retest reliability of the RS-14 were both 0.82 (P < 0.001), and the internal consistency Cronbach's α was 0.93. The cutoff score of 64 was obtained for screening cancer patients with low resilience (sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 and 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the RS-14 has good validity and reliability, and it can measure the resilience of Chinese people. The cutoff score of 64 for the RS-14 is appropriate for detecting cancer patients with low resilience in order to decrease psychological stress and improving quality of life. Health care nurses can screen and detect cancer patients with low resilience based on the said cutoff score to timely provide psychological care and interventions for the patients.
PURPOSE: We aim to investigate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Resilience Scale (RS-14) and to determine the cutoff score of the RS-14 for screening Chinese cancerpatients with low resilience. METHODS: The current study was divided into two studies. In the first study, we randomly selected 625 people and obtained their scores in the Chinese version of the RS-14 and SF-36 using cross-sectional survey. We then calculated the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the RS-14. In the second study, we selected 970 hospital cancerpatients diagnosed during 2010 to 2011 and assessed for their resilience once and for anxiety, depression, and quality of life on two occasions. We determined the cutoff score of the RS-14 based on the maximum Youden Index, with the scores of anxiety and depression as gold standards. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients for inter-items were in the range of 0.23 to 0.68 (P < 0.001), whereas those for the item-scale were in the range of 0.62 to 0.82 (P < 0.001). Two factors represent the factor structure of the RS-14. The correlation coefficient between the RS-14 and SF-36 scores was 0.82 (P < 0.001). The split-half reliability and test-retest reliability of the RS-14 were both 0.82 (P < 0.001), and the internal consistency Cronbach's α was 0.93. The cutoff score of 64 was obtained for screening cancerpatients with low resilience (sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 and 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the RS-14 has good validity and reliability, and it can measure the resilience of Chinese people. The cutoff score of 64 for the RS-14 is appropriate for detecting cancerpatients with low resilience in order to decrease psychological stress and improving quality of life. Health care nurses can screen and detect cancerpatients with low resilience based on the said cutoff score to timely provide psychological care and interventions for the patients.
Authors: Edgar S Valesin Filho; Luiz Carlos de Abreu; Guilherme Hv Lima; Daniel Ig de Cubero; Fabrício H Ueno; Gustavo Sl Figueiredo; Vitor E Valenti; Carlos Bandeira de Mello Monteiro; Rubens Wajnsztejn; Edison N Fujiki; Modesto Rolim Neto; Luciano M Rodrigues Journal: Int Arch Med Date: 2013-02-18