Xuekun Zhang1, Yuanyuan Mo1, Chunxia Yan2, Yang Li3, Huiling Li4,5. 1. School of Nursing, Medical College, Soochow University, Suzhou, China. 2. The Reproductive Medicine Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China. 3. School of Nursing, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA. 4. School of Nursing, Medical College, Soochow University, Suzhou, China. lhl8543@126.com. 5. The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China. lhl8543@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the 10-item and 2-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the agreement between these two versions, and the measurement invariance of the CD-RISC-10 across genders in Chinese infertile couples. METHODS: A total of 170 infertile couples were enrolled from an infertility outpatient clinic between September 2019 and January 2020. The CD-RISC scores were tested for floor and ceiling effects. Reliability was evaluated by calculating Cronbach's α. Convergent and divergent validity were assessed by bivariate correlations between resilience and infertility-related stress, depression, anxiety, and two divergent variables. Agreement between the two versions was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. A multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the measurement equivalence of CD-RISC-10 across genders. RESULTS: No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Internal consistencies of CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2 were 0.91 and 0.63, respectively. The CFA analysis indicated an excellent model fit for a one-factor structure of CD-RISC-10 (TLI > 0.950, CFI > 0.950, RMSEA < 0.060). Both scales displayed good convergent and divergent validity, and the agreement between them was significant with an ICC of 0.80 (95% CI ranging from 0.76 to 0.84). Measurement invariance across genders was supported by multigroup CFA, and a higher level of resilience was found in men than in women. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed significant reliability, validity, and stability of CD-RISC-10 and acceptable internal consistency and validity of CD-RISC-2. CD-RISC-10 is recommended as a resilience measure in clinical evaluations of infertile patients.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the 10-item and 2-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the agreement between these two versions, and the measurement invariance of the CD-RISC-10 across genders in Chinese infertile couples. METHODS: A total of 170 infertile couples were enrolled from an infertilityoutpatient clinic between September 2019 and January 2020. The CD-RISC scores were tested for floor and ceiling effects. Reliability was evaluated by calculating Cronbach's α. Convergent and divergent validity were assessed by bivariate correlations between resilience and infertility-related stress, depression, anxiety, and two divergent variables. Agreement between the two versions was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. A multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the measurement equivalence of CD-RISC-10 across genders. RESULTS: No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Internal consistencies of CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2 were 0.91 and 0.63, respectively. The CFA analysis indicated an excellent model fit for a one-factor structure of CD-RISC-10 (TLI > 0.950, CFI > 0.950, RMSEA < 0.060). Both scales displayed good convergent and divergent validity, and the agreement between them was significant with an ICC of 0.80 (95% CI ranging from 0.76 to 0.84). Measurement invariance across genders was supported by multigroup CFA, and a higher level of resilience was found in men than in women. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed significant reliability, validity, and stability of CD-RISC-10 and acceptable internal consistency and validity of CD-RISC-2. CD-RISC-10 is recommended as a resilience measure in clinical evaluations of infertilepatients.
Authors: Sofia Gameiro; Alexandra W van den Belt-Dusebout; Jesper M J Smeenk; Didi D M Braat; Flora E van Leeuwen; Christianne M Verhaak Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Wu Seong Kang; In Soo Shin; Jung Soo Pyo; Sora Ahn; Seungwoo Chung; Young Jun Ki; Junepill Seok; Chan Yong Park; Sungdo Lee Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Anthony C Waddimba; Bailey M Baker; Jamie R Pogue; Madison P McAuliffe; Monica M Bennett; Ronald D Baxter; David C Mohr; Ann Marie Warren Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Agnes Y K Lai; George O C Cheung; Asa C M Choi; Man-Ping Wang; Polly S L Chan; Angie H Y Lam; Esther W S Lo; Chia-Chin Lin; Tai-Hing Lam Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-09 Impact factor: 4.614