4.5 Article

Development of the psychosomatic symptom scale (PSSS) and assessment of its reliability and validity in general hospital patients in China

Journal

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 64, Issue -, Pages 1-8

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2020.01.008

Keywords

Psychosomatic symptom; Self-rated scale; PSSS; Psychometrics; Cut-off score

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2016YFC1306700, 2016YFC1306702]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81371488]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To develop and verify the Psychosomatic Symptom Scale (PSSS) among psychosomatic patients and the cut-off value of PSSS in distinguishing psychosomatic patients from health controls. Methods: The PSSS was drafted by an expert workgroup. 996 patients and 366 controls from 14 general hospitals in China were recruited to complete PSSS, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) and Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90). Student's t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Cronbach's a, Spearman's correlation, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to verify the PSSS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to determine the cut-off value. Results: Cronbach a of PSSS was 0.907. The PSSS was significantly correlated with SCL-90 somatization subscale (r = 0.682, P < 0.001) and PHQ-15 (r = 0.724, P < 0.001). CFA supported the theoretical two-factor structure of the PSSS, with comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.979, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.977, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.039 (90% CI: 0.035-0.042), and standardized root mean residual (SRMR) = 0.054. As the sum score of PSSS was significantly higher in female, cut-off values were determined as 11 in females and 10 in males respectively. Conclusions: The PSSS is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring psychosomatic symptoms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available