↓ Skip to main content

The reliability and validity of a Chinese-version Short Health Anxiety Inventory: an investigation of university students

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The reliability and validity of a Chinese-version Short Health Anxiety Inventory: an investigation of university students
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s83501
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuqun Zhang, Rui Liu, Guohong Li, Shengqin Mao, Yonggui Yuan

Abstract

The Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI) is widely used in English-speaking populations, with good reliability and validity. For further research needs in the Chinese population, it was translated into a Chinese version (CSHAI). Furthermore, the reliability, validity, and cutoff score were examined in a nonclinical population in the People's Republic of China. Three hundred and sixteen undergraduates were evaluated by a set of questionnaires including CSHAI, Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Fifty-eight students completed CSHAI again after 30 days. The two-factor model had satisfactory fit indices. The correlation coefficients between each item with the CSHAI total and each subscale were between 0.386 and 0.779. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients of CSHAI total and its subscales were 0.742, 0.743, and 0.788, respectively, and the split-half coefficients were 0.757, 0.788, and 0.912. The test-retest correlation coefficients were, respectively, 0.598 (P<0.001), 0.539 (P<0.001), and 0.691 (P<0.001). Convergent validities were respectively 0.389-0.453, 0.389-0.410, and 0.250-0.401, and discriminant validities were -5.689 (P<0.001), -5.614 (P<0.001), and -3.709 (P<0.001). The cutoff score was 15. CSHAI showed good factor structure, reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, and 15 was determined to be the appropriate cutoff score for screening health anxiety.

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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,901
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,255
of 277,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#78
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 277,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.