Psychometric Testing of the Chinese Version of the Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short Form in Adults With Chronic Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adaptive capacity may serve as an indicator of the individuals’ coping behaviors towards illness management and may contribute to day-to-day living with chronic illness and improved quality of life. Practical and well-constructed instruments for measuring adaptation have not been adequately explored. An English 15-item Coping and Adaptation Processing-Short Form (CAPS-SF) for assessing adaptation has been created and validated in line with the underlying tenets of Coping and Adaptation Processing theory, but there is no applicable Chinese version. Methods: The CAPS-SF was translated and culturally adapted into simplified Chinese. Among Chinese adults with chronic illness, eighty-one patients were selected for cultural adaptation and 288 patients were approached for psychometric testing. Content validity was evaluated by an expert panel. Construct validity was tested by confirmatory factor analysis. Concurrent validity and predictive validity were analyzed by Spearman correlation coefficient. Reliability was assessed by internal consistency and test-retest coefficients. Floor/ceiling effect was calculated. Results: Adequate content validity was ensured by the expert panel. A four-factor structure (resourceful and focused, self-initiated and knowing-based, physical and fixed, and positive and systematic) describing individuals’ coping strategies was identified and verified. Concurrent validity and predictive validity were demonstrated by strong correlations with the confrontation of coping mode (r= 0.46) and a quality of life measure (r= 0.58). The McDonald’s Omega coefficient of total scale was 0.82. Split-Half reliability and test-retest reliability were 0.87 and 0.87. No floor/ ceiling effect was present. Conclusions: The Chinese version CAPS-SF is a theoretically based and culturally acceptable instrument with sound psychometric properties. Further studies are advocated to refine its four-factor structure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".