IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0291586.html

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Benefit Finding Questionnaire for people with mental disorders

Author

Listed:
  • Xinyu Cao
  • Xiaomeng Tian
  • Yan Wen
  • Peijuan Li
  • Ruyu Ge
  • Xiaolin Li
  • Mei Feng

Abstract

Background: Benefit finding (BF) is correlated with mental health and recovery, and its presence will contribute to the recovery of patients with mental disorders. Most of the current tools for assessing BF in patients with somatic disorders are not adequate for patients with mental disorders. The present study proposes to introduce the Benefit Finding Questionnaire for People with Mental Disorders and to validate its psychometric properties. Methods: The Beaton translation model was used to translate and cross-culturally adjust the Japanese version of the Benefit Finding Questionnaire for People with Mental Disorders. A survey of 514 people with mental disorders was conducted from January 2022 to October 2022 using a general information questionnaire and a translated Chinese version of the Benefit Finding Questionnaire for People with Mental Disorders (BFQ-C) using a convenience sampling method. The quality of the questionnaire was examined in terms of item analysis, reliability, and validity. Results: The results of the item analysis showed that all items met the requirements. The interrater agreement of the BFQ-C was good, with an interrater agreement = 0.714; the values of the item-level content validity index ranged from 0.75 to 1.00; and the average of all item-level content validity index on the scale = 0.958. Exploratory factor analysis extracted three main factors “change in relationship with others,” “change in spirituality,” and “change in values and thinking styles”—and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 57.70%. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis were χ2/df of 2.194, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation of 0.075, and comparative fit index of 0.919, indicating that the model fitted well. The questionnaire had a Cronbach’ alpha of 0.936, a split reliability of 0.956, and a retest reliability of 0.939. Conclusion: The BFQ-C demonstrated good reliability and validity, and can be used to assess the BF level of people with mental disorders (e.g., anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders) in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinyu Cao & Xiaomeng Tian & Yan Wen & Peijuan Li & Ruyu Ge & Xiaolin Li & Mei Feng, 2024. "Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Benefit Finding Questionnaire for people with mental disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-17, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0291586
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291586
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291586
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291586&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0291586?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0291586. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.