Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of a Psychological Scale for Bariatric Surgery: The BariTest

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-06-29 DOI:10.1111/jep.70136

Tianying Xiang, Jionghuang Chen, Jing Fang, Mingxia Zhu, Sufen Zheng, Weihua Yu, Jianfen Qin

{"title":"Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of a Psychological Scale for Bariatric Surgery: The BariTest","authors":"Tianying Xiang, Jionghuang Chen, Jing Fang, Mingxia Zhu, Sufen Zheng, Weihua Yu, Jianfen Qin","doi":"10.1111/jep.70136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to localize the BariTest psychological scale for bariatric surgery and verify its psychometric properties in Chinese bariatric population.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Initially, the original version BariTest scale was evaluated for quality in accordance with the 2018 Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Following this, a comprehensive cross-cultural adaptation process was undertaken to translate the scale into Chinese. Ultimately, to evaluate its psychometric properties, a questionnaire survey was administered to a convenience sample of 328 patients undergoing BS at a tertiary grade A hospital in Zhejiang Province.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The original BariTest scale received a recommendation for use (Level A). The Chinese adaptation exhibited exceptional reliability excellent reliability (Cronbach's <i>α</i> = 0.983) and test-retest reliability coefficient (<i>r</i> = 0.848), both statistically significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The Scale-level Content Validity Index (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.988, indicating a high degree of high validity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) revealed an acceptable structural validity for the six-factor model, evidenced by the following fit indices: <i>χ²/d</i>f = 1.355, RMSEA = 0.033, SRMR = 0.0327, IFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.969, and GFI = 0.824. Additionally, the psychometric evaluation affirmed robust convergent and discriminant validity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The Chinese version of the BariTest scale demonstrates robust reliability and validity, positioning it as an effective psychological scale for bariatric surgery in China.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70136","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to localize the BariTest psychological scale for bariatric surgery and verify its psychometric properties in Chinese bariatric population.

Methods

Initially, the original version BariTest scale was evaluated for quality in accordance with the 2018 Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Following this, a comprehensive cross-cultural adaptation process was undertaken to translate the scale into Chinese. Ultimately, to evaluate its psychometric properties, a questionnaire survey was administered to a convenience sample of 328 patients undergoing BS at a tertiary grade A hospital in Zhejiang Province.

Results

The original BariTest scale received a recommendation for use (Level A). The Chinese adaptation exhibited exceptional reliability excellent reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.983) and test-retest reliability coefficient (r = 0.848), both statistically significant (p < 0.001). The Scale-level Content Validity Index (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.988, indicating a high degree of high validity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) revealed an acceptable structural validity for the six-factor model, evidenced by the following fit indices: χ²/df = 1.355, RMSEA = 0.033, SRMR = 0.0327, IFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.969, and GFI = 0.824. Additionally, the psychometric evaluation affirmed robust convergent and discriminant validity.

Conclusion

The Chinese version of the BariTest scale demonstrates robust reliability and validity, positioning it as an effective psychological scale for bariatric surgery in China.

查看原文本刊更多论文

减肥手术心理量表的跨文化适应和验证：BariTest

目的研究BariTest减肥手术心理量表的国产化，并验证其在中国肥胖人群中的心理测量特性。方法首先，根据2018年基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准（COSMIN）指南对原始版本BariTest量表进行质量评估。在此之后，进行了全面的跨文化适应过程，将量表翻译成中文。最后，为了评估其心理测量学特性，我们对浙江省某三甲医院的328例BS患者进行了问卷调查。结果原BariTest量表被推荐使用（a级）。中国人的适应表现出优异的信度——极优信度（Cronbach’s α = 0.983）和重测信度系数（r = 0.848），均具有统计学意义（p < 0.001）。量表级内容效度指数（S-CVI/Ave）为0.988，具有较高的高效度。验证性因子分析（CFA）显示六因素模型具有可接受的结构效度，拟合指数为χ²/df = 1.355, RMSEA = 0.033, SRMR = 0.0327, IFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.969, GFI = 0.824。此外，心理测量评估也确认了稳健的收敛效度和判别效度。结论中文版BariTest量表具有较强的信度和效度，可作为中国减肥手术的有效心理量表。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

4.20%

发文量

143

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.