These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The Chinese version of the general benefit finding scale (GBFS): Psychometric properties in a sample of college students.
    Author: Hui Z, Wang X, Teng Z, Zou W, Wang J, Ji P, Wang M.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2024; 19(5):e0300064. PubMed ID: 38713666.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Benefit finding has become a central construct in the evolution of positive psychology and attracted attention in recent literature. This study aimed to translate and validate the General Benefit Finding Scale (GBFS) in Chinese college students. METHODS: Forward- and back-translation of the GBFS was followed by the assessment of semantic equivalence and content validity. A sample of 589 college students was recruited in China to conduct reliability and validity analysis. The construct validity was assessed using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Concurrent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficients of the GBFS with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and World Health Organization-Five Well-Being (WHO-5). Internal consistency and two-week test-retest reliability were also evaluated. RESULTS: The content validity index for each item ranged from 0.83 to 1.00. EFA revealed a six-factor model, which exhibited acceptable goodness of fit in CFA (standardized root mean square residual = 0.031, root mean square error of approximation = 0.059, goodness-of-fit index = 0.860, comparative fit index = 0.904, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.890, chi-squared/degree of freedom = 2.07). The concurrent validity of the GBFS was supported by its statistically significant correlations with PSS (r = -0.271, p<0.001) and WHO-5 (r = 0.354, p<0.001). Moreover, the internal consistency for the overall scale was satisfactory, with Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.93 and McDonald's omega reliability of 0.94. The test-retest reliability was 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Chinese version of GBFS was examined in a homogeneous convenience sample of college students, it provides a reliable and valid instrument for assessing benefit finding in the Chinese context.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]