| Literature DB >> 35528790 |
Minjie Li1, Carmen W H Chan1, Kai Chow Choi1, Hui Zhang2, Shek Nam Ng1, Lina Huang2, Mengyue Zhang3, Wenqian Zhao3.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to translate the revised dyadic adjustment scale into Chinese and evaluate its psychometric properties in gynaecological cancer patients and their male partners.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese; Gynaecological cancer; Marital satisfaction; Psychometric evaluation; Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale; Validation
Year: 2021 PMID: 35528790 PMCID: PMC9072179 DOI: 10.1016/j.apjon.2021.12.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs ISSN: 2347-5625
Sociodemographic and clinical information and scores on the Chinese version of the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (n = 252).
| Characteristics | Patients ( | Partners ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | |||
| Age (years), Mean ± SD | 48.49 ± 7.38 | 48.95 ± 8.36 | ||
| ≤ 45 | 34 | 27.0 | 35 | 27.8 |
| > 45 | 92 | 73.0 | 91 | 72.2 |
| Diagnosis | ||||
| Cervical cancer | 101 | 80.2 | 100 | 79.4 |
| Ovarian cancer | 13 | 10.3 | 10 | 7.9 |
| Endometrial/Vaginal cancer | 12 | 9.5 | 16 | 12.7 |
| Medical treatment types | ||||
| 1 type | 27 | 22.1 | 28 | 22.8 |
| 2 or more types | 95 | 77.9 | 95 | 77.2 |
| Cancer stage | ||||
| Stage I–II | 84 | 74.3 | 66 | 59.5 |
| Stage III–IV | 29 | 25.7 | 45 | 50.5 |
| Months since diagnosis | ||||
| ≤ 5 | 84 | 67.2 | 75 | 62.5 |
| > 5 | 41 | 32.8 | 45 | 37.5 |
| Educational level | ||||
| Below Middle school | 92 | 73.6 | 65 | 51.6 |
| High school or higher | 33 | 26.4 | 61 | 48.4 |
| Employment | ||||
| Have work | 90 | 71.4 | 119 | 94.4 |
| No work | 36 | 28.6 | 7 | 5.6 |
| Parity | ||||
| Less than two | 33 | 26.8 | 52 | 42.3 |
| Two or more | 90 | 73.2 | 71 | 57.7 |
| Monthly income per capita (RMB) | ||||
| Less than 2000 | 45 | 35.7 | 44 | 34.9 |
| 2000–6000 | 70 | 55.6 | 69 | 54.8 |
| > 6000 | 11 | 8.7 | 13 | 10.3 |
| Medical insurance reimbursement rate | ||||
| < 30% | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2.4 |
| 30–50% | 36 | 28.6 | 37 | 29.3 |
| 51–80% | 81 | 64.3 | 80 | 63.5 |
| > 80% | 9 | 7.1 | 6 | 4.8 |
With missing data.
For partners refers to information of their wives.
Reliability of the Chinese version of the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (n = 252).
| Factor/No. item | Item-factor correlation | Corrected item-total correlation | Cronbach’s α | Cronbach’s α if item deleted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.755 | ||||
| 1. Religious matters | 0.398 | 0.246 | 0.775 | |
| 2. Demonstrations of affection | 0.722 | 0.583 | 0.715 | |
| 3. Making major decisions | 0.751 | 0.535 | 0.695 | |
| 4. Sex relations | 0.728 | 0.529 | 0.696 | |
| 5. Conventionality (correct or proper behavior) | 0.681 | 0.338 | 0.712 | |
| 6. Career decisions | 0.705 | 0.371 | 0.709 | |
| 0.866 | ||||
| 7. How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation, or terminating your relationship? | 0.819 | 0.626 | 0.840 | |
| 8. How often do you and your partner quarrel? | 0.871 | 0.597 | 0.821 | |
| 9. Do you ever regret that you married (or lived together)? | 0.828 | 0.678 | 0.833 | |
| 10. How often do you and your mate ‘get on each other's nerves’? | 0.870 | 0.594 | 0.817 | |
| 0.838 | ||||
| 11. Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? | 0.780 | 0.379 | 0.823 | |
| 12. Have a stimulating exchange of ideas | 0.832 | 0.607 | 0.786 | |
| 13. Work together on a project | 0.819 | 0.419 | 0.802 | |
| 14. Calmly discuss something | 0.854 | 0.551 | 0.770 | |
Figure 1Structure of the Chinese version of the revised dyadic adjustment scale measurement model of confirmatory factor analysis.
Model fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis.
| Index | Value |
|---|---|
| χ2/df | 2.560 |
| GFI | 0.913 |
| RMSEA | 0.079 |
| RMR | 0.046 |
| SRMR | 0.073 |
| CFI | 0.932 |
| PNFI | 0.688 |
| PGFI | 0.608 |
Abbreviations: GFI, goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; RMR, root-mean-square residual; SRMR, standardised root-mean-square residual; CFI, comparative fit index; PNFI, parsimonious normed-fit index; PGFI, parsimony goodness-of-fit index.