2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2019.05.032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Translation and validation of Taiwan Chinese version of the self-regulation questionnaire for gynecologic cancer survivors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…With this analysis, the evaluation of the consistency and the internal coherence of the original question blocks with quantitative items was performed. The factorial analysis has the methodological merits of providing data for the creation of a rigorous conceptual structure [ 50 ]. In our questionnaire, we compared results from the factor analysis with the original block structure.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With this analysis, the evaluation of the consistency and the internal coherence of the original question blocks with quantitative items was performed. The factorial analysis has the methodological merits of providing data for the creation of a rigorous conceptual structure [ 50 ]. In our questionnaire, we compared results from the factor analysis with the original block structure.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The confirmatory factorial analysis is considered adequate to define a questionnaire’s underlying conceptual structure [ 36 ], and in our case, the sample size was beyond the figures suggested in the literature [ 22 , 24 ]. Regarding the evaluation of RMSEA, weights under 0.08 indicate a good fit, which was our case.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The confirmatory factorial analysis was utilized to establish the questionnaire’s underlying conceptual structure [ 37 ]. Albeit the evaluation of RMSEA can be subjective, weights under 0.08 are considered indicative of a good fit, and in our case, it was much lower.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%