Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of resilience scale specific to cancer: an item response theory analysis
Classic theory test has been used to develop and validate the 25-item Resilience Scale Specific to Cancer (RS-SC) in Chinese patients with cancer. This study was designed to provide additional information about the discriminative value of the individual items tested with an item response theory analysis.
A two-parameter graded response model was performed to examine whether any of the items of the RS-SC exhibited problems with the ordering and steps of thresholds, as well as the ability of items to discriminate patients with different resilience levels using item characteristic curves.
A sample of 214 Chinese patients with cancer diagnosis was analyzed. The established three-dimension structure of the RS-SC was confirmed. Several items showed problematic thresholds or discrimination ability and require further revision.
Some problematic items should be refined and a short-form of RS-SC maybe feasible in clinical settings in order to reduce burden on patients. However, the generalizability of these findings warrants further investigations.
KeywordsCancer Oncology Resilience RS-SC Psychometrics Item response theory
The authors acknowledge the valuable information provided by the patients who participated in this study.
ZJY, MZL, HZQ—conceptualized and designed the study, carried out the initial analyses, supervised data collection, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. HWZ, PFL, XRO, MLL, YLY—coordinated data collection, critically reviewed the manuscript, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 5.Ye, Z. J., Liu, Q. C., & Liang, M. Z. (2016). The exploratory evaluation of resilience model for breast cancer (RM-BC) among patients with breast cancer diagnosis. Medicine & Philosophy, 12(B), 75–79.Google Scholar
- 6.Ye, Z. J., Liang, M. Z., Qiu, H. Z., et al. (2016). Effect of a multidiscipline mentor-based program, be resilient to breast cancer (BRBC), on female breast cancer survivors in mainland China-A randomized, controlled, theoretically-derived intervention trial. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 158(3), 509–522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems (vol. 1, p. 274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.Google Scholar
- 10.Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory (p. 527). Orlando, FL: Sea Harbor Drive.Google Scholar
- 12.Zheng, L. L., Wang, Y. L., & Li, H. C. (2003). The application of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in the general hospitals. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry Medicine, 5, 264–266.Google Scholar
- 13.Baker, F. (2001). The basics of item response theory, ERIC clearinghouse on assessment and evaluation. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
- 14.Embretson, S., & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists, L. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 16.Andrich, D., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (2000). RUMM2010: A windows interactive program for analysing data with Rasch unidimensional models for measurement. Perth, WA: RUMM Laboratory.Google Scholar
- 17.Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- 19.De Ayala, R. J., Kim, S. H., Stapleton, L. M., & Dayton, C. M. (1999). A reconceptualization of differential item functioning. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; April 19–23.Google Scholar
- 21.Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (2012). Differential item functioning. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 23.Scali, J., Gandubert, C., Ritchie, K., Soulier, M., Ancelin, M. L., & Chaudieu, I. (2012). Measuring resilience in adult women using the 10-items Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Role of trauma exposure and anxiety disorders. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e39879.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.Julious, S. A. (2010). Sample sizes for clinical trials. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- 29.Sébille, V., Hardouin, J. B., Le Néel, T., et al. (2010). Methodological issues regarding power of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT)-based approaches for the comparison of patient-reported outcomes in two groups of patients-a simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar