↓ Skip to main content

Chinese translation and psychometric testing of the cardiac self-efficacy scale in patients with coronary heart disease in mainland China

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Chinese translation and psychometric testing of the cardiac self-efficacy scale in patients with coronary heart disease in mainland China
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0872-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xuelin Zhang, Yan Zhan, Jun Liu, Shouxia Chai, Lanlan Xu, Meirong Lei, Karen Wei Ling Koh, Ying Jiang, Wenru Wang

Abstract

A person's self-efficacy plays a critical role during the chronic management process of a health condition. Assessment of self-efficacy for patients with heart diseases is essential for healthcare professionals to provide tailored interventions to help patient to manage the disease. To translate and test the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Cardiac Self-efficacy Scale (C-CSES) as a disease-specific instrument for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in mainland China. The original English version of the CSES was translated into Chinese using a forward-backward translation approach. A convenience sample consisting of 224 Chinese patients with CHD were recruited from a university-affiliated hospital in Shiyan, China. The C-CSES and the General Self-efficacy Scale (GSES) were used in this study. The factor structure, convergent and discriminative validities, and internal consistency of the C-CSES were evaluated. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a three-factor high-order structure of the C-CSES with model fit indexes (RMSEA = 0.084, CFI = 0.954, NNFI = 0.927, IFI = 0.954 and χ 2 /df = 2.572). The C-CSES has good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.926. The convergent validity of the C-CSES was established with significantly moderate correlations between the C-CSES and the Chinese version of the GSES (p < 0.001). The C-CSES has also shown good discriminative validity with significant differences of cardiac self-efficacy being found between patients with and without comorbidities of hypertension, diabetes, or heart failure. The empirical data supported that the C-CSES is a valid and reliable disease-specific instrument for assessing the self-efficacy of Chinese patients with CHD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 49 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 29 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Psychology 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 52 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,596,820
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#303
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,842
of 332,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#21
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.