Why the study?
The psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale (MSES-C) among stroke survivors needed to be examined.
Is the Chinese version of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale a reliable and valid instrument for assessing self-efficacy in Chinese stroke survivors?
Is the Chinese version of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale a reliable and valid instrument for assessing self-efficacy in Chinese stroke survivors?
The Chinese version of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale is a reliable and valid tool for assessing self-efficacy in stroke survivors in China.
MSES-C shows strong reliability and validity in Chinese stroke survivors; supports scale validation but leaves open clinical utility pending longitudinal outcome studies.
Purpose To examine the psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Moorong Self-Efficacy Scale (MSES-C) among stroke survivors.Methods A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with 160 stroke survivors recruited from the three neurology departments in China. Reliability, concurrent validity, and construct validity of the scale were determined.Results The MSES-C whole scale showed good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α of 0.953. There was a moderate to a strong positive correlation between the MSES-C and Chinese version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (r = 0.695, p < 0.000), a strong positive correlation between the MSES-C and Chinese version of the stroke specific self-efficacy scale (r = 0.801, p < 0.000), positive correlations between the MSES-C and Chinese versions of the Modified Barthel Index (r = 0.695, p < 0.000), and a negative correlation between the MSES-C and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (r = –0.511, p < 0.000). Known-group validity was also supported.Conclusions The MSES-C is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing self-efficacy in Chinese stroke survivors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: