ObjectiveSome individuals with systemic sclerosis (SSc) report positive mental health, despite severe disease manifestations, which may be associated with resilience, but no resilience measure has been validated in SSc. This study was undertaken to assess the validity, reliability, and differential item functioning (DIF) between English‐ and French‐language versions of the 10‐item Connor‐Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC‐10) in SSc.MethodsEligible participants were enrolled in the Scleroderma Patient‐centered Intervention Network Cohort and completed the CD‐RISC‐10 between August 2022 and January 2023. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the CD‐RISC‐10 factor structure and conducted DIF analysis across languages with Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes models. We tested convergent validity with another measure of resilience and measures of self‐esteem and depression and anxiety symptoms. We assessed internal consistency and test–retest reliability using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsA total of 962 participants were included in this analysis. CFA supported a single‐factor structure (Tucker–Lewis index = 0.99, comparative fit index = 0.99, root mean square error of approximation = 0.08 [90% confidence interval (90% CI) 0.07, 0.09]). We found no meaningful DIF. Internal consistency was high (α = 0.93 [95% CI 0.92, 0.94]), and we found that correlations with other measures of psychological functioning were moderate to large (|r| = 0.57–0.78) and confirmed study hypotheses. The scale showed good 1–2‐week test–retest reliability (ICC 0.80 [95% CI 0.75, 0.85]) in a subsample of 230 participants.ConclusionThe CD‐RISC‐10 is a valid and reliable measure of resilience in SSc, with score comparability across English and French versions.image

Objectives Depression screening tool accuracy studies should be conducted with large enough sample sizes to generate precise accuracy estimates. We assessed the proportion of recently published depression screening tool diagnostic accuracy studies that reported sample size calculations; the proportion that provided confidence intervals (CIs); and precision, based on the width and lower bounds of 95% CIs for sensitivity and specificity. In addition, we assessed whether these results have improved since a previous review of studies published in 2013–2015. Methods MEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2018, through May 21, 2021. Results Twelve of 106 primary studies (11%) described a viable sample size calculation, which represented an improvement of 8% since the last review. Thirty‐six studies (34%) provided reasonably accurate CIs. Of 103 studies where 95% CIs were provided or could be calculated, seven (7%) had sensitivity CI widths of ≤10%, whereas 58 (56%) had widths of ≥21%. Eighty‐four studies (82%) had lower bounds of CIs <80% for sensitivity and 77 studies (75%) for specificity. These results were similar to those reported previously. Conclusion Few studies reported sample size calculations, and the number of included individuals in most studies was too small to generate reasonably precise accuracy estimates.

No abstract