2009
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmp044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CARE Measure in a primary care setting in Hong Kong

Abstract: These preliminary data support the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the CARE Measure in primary care in Hong Kong.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

24
78
3
7

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(112 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
24
78
3
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Factor analysis of the Chinese CARE has supported a single domain solution with a high factor loading, and construct validity has been demonstrated using the association between Chinese CARE scores and patient enablement and satisfaction. 7,8 The Chinese CARE consists of 10 items with response options ranging from poor to excellent (scored on a 5-point Likert scale), yielding a maximum score of 50 points. A “not applicable” option was included for each question.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Factor analysis of the Chinese CARE has supported a single domain solution with a high factor loading, and construct validity has been demonstrated using the association between Chinese CARE scores and patient enablement and satisfaction. 7,8 The Chinese CARE consists of 10 items with response options ranging from poor to excellent (scored on a 5-point Likert scale), yielding a maximum score of 50 points. A “not applicable” option was included for each question.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the full questionnaire, please contact the developers of Chinese CARE. 7 Up to 2 “not applicable” responses or missing values were considered acceptable, and values for these were imputed by an expectation-maximization algorithm. Questionnaires with ≥3 “not applicable” responses or missing values were excluded from the analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations