Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese Version
ObjectivesTo test the validity and reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese version in clinical nurses.MethodsAccording to the translation principles of the Brislin Scale, the original scale was translated, back translated and cross-culturally adapted to form the Chinese version o...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-04-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Surgery |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2022.882712/full |
| _version_ | 1811328449309048832 |
|---|---|
| author | Yi He Zhiqun Liu Juan Zhang Jiapei Yao Huan Xiao Huan Wan |
| author_facet | Yi He Zhiqun Liu Juan Zhang Jiapei Yao Huan Xiao Huan Wan |
| author_sort | Yi He |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ObjectivesTo test the validity and reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese version in clinical nurses.MethodsAccording to the translation principles of the Brislin Scale, the original scale was translated, back translated and cross-culturally adapted to form the Chinese version of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale. Nurses in three general hospitals in Changsha, Hunan province were surveyed by convenient sampling method from July 2020 to September 2021. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, content validity and criterion validity was used to evaluate the validity of the scale. Internal consistency Cronbach's α coefficient, split-half reliability and test-retest reliability were used to evaluate the reliability of the scale.ResultsA total of 678 nurses were included in the study. There were 460 people in sample 1 and 218 people in sample 2. Two common factors were extracted by exploratory factor analysis. The cumulative contribution was 65.560%. The two-factor structure model was good (χ2/df = 3.137, CFI = 0.928, IFI = 0.929, GFI = 0.842, TLI = 0.917, RMSEA = 0.099). The I-CVI of the scale was 0.8–1.0. The S-CVI/Ave was 0.94. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient is 0.956. The broken half reliability is 0.920. The retest reliability is 0.910.ConclusionThis study identified two components of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese version, which has 2 dimensions and 17 items. With good validity and reliability, it is suitable for the assessment of secondary traumatic stress among clinical nurses in the Chinese context. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T15:26:23Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1faa2f4e84cb4408b297a94b2b39d900 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2296-875X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T15:26:23Z |
| publishDate | 2022-04-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Surgery |
| spelling | doaj.art-1faa2f4e84cb4408b297a94b2b39d9002022-12-22T02:41:30ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Surgery2296-875X2022-04-01910.3389/fsurg.2022.882712882712Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese VersionYi He0Zhiqun Liu1Juan Zhang2Jiapei Yao3Huan Xiao4Huan Wan5Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University), Changsha, ChinaDepartment of Respiratory Therapy, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University), Changsha, ChinaDepartment of Biliary Surgery, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University), Changsha, ChinaDepartment of Orthopedics, The Affiliated Changzhou No.2 People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, ChinaDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University), Changsha, ChinaDepartment of Nursing, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital (The First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University), Changsha, ChinaObjectivesTo test the validity and reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese version in clinical nurses.MethodsAccording to the translation principles of the Brislin Scale, the original scale was translated, back translated and cross-culturally adapted to form the Chinese version of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale. Nurses in three general hospitals in Changsha, Hunan province were surveyed by convenient sampling method from July 2020 to September 2021. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, content validity and criterion validity was used to evaluate the validity of the scale. Internal consistency Cronbach's α coefficient, split-half reliability and test-retest reliability were used to evaluate the reliability of the scale.ResultsA total of 678 nurses were included in the study. There were 460 people in sample 1 and 218 people in sample 2. Two common factors were extracted by exploratory factor analysis. The cumulative contribution was 65.560%. The two-factor structure model was good (χ2/df = 3.137, CFI = 0.928, IFI = 0.929, GFI = 0.842, TLI = 0.917, RMSEA = 0.099). The I-CVI of the scale was 0.8–1.0. The S-CVI/Ave was 0.94. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient is 0.956. The broken half reliability is 0.920. The retest reliability is 0.910.ConclusionThis study identified two components of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese version, which has 2 dimensions and 17 items. With good validity and reliability, it is suitable for the assessment of secondary traumatic stress among clinical nurses in the Chinese context.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2022.882712/fullsecondary traumatic stressvalidityreliabilityscaleChinesization |
| spellingShingle | Yi He Zhiqun Liu Juan Zhang Jiapei Yao Huan Xiao Huan Wan Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese Version Frontiers in Surgery secondary traumatic stress validity reliability scale Chinesization |
| title | Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese Version |
| title_full | Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese Version |
| title_fullStr | Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese Version |
| title_full_unstemmed | Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese Version |
| title_short | Validity and Reliability of the Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale—Chinese Version |
| title_sort | validity and reliability of the secondary traumatic stress scale chinese version |
| topic | secondary traumatic stress validity reliability scale Chinesization |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2022.882712/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yihe validityandreliabilityofthesecondarytraumaticstressscalechineseversion AT zhiqunliu validityandreliabilityofthesecondarytraumaticstressscalechineseversion AT juanzhang validityandreliabilityofthesecondarytraumaticstressscalechineseversion AT jiapeiyao validityandreliabilityofthesecondarytraumaticstressscalechineseversion AT huanxiao validityandreliabilityofthesecondarytraumaticstressscalechineseversion AT huanwan validityandreliabilityofthesecondarytraumaticstressscalechineseversion |