4.6 Article

Cross-Culture Validation of the HIV/AIDS Stress Scale: The Development of a Revised Chinese Version

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152990

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81202290]
  2. Hunan Academy of Social Science [13WTB22]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Being HIV-infected is a stressful experience for many individuals. To assess HIV-related stress in the Chinese context, ameasure with satisfied psychometric properties is yet underdeveloped. This study aimed to examine the psychometric characteristics of a simplified Chinese version of the HIV/AIDS Stress Scale (SS-HIV) among people living with HIV/AIDS in central China. Method A total of 667 people living with HIV (92% were male) were recruited from March 1st 2014 to August 31th 2015 by consecutive sampling. A standard questionnaire package containing the Chinese HIV/AIDS Stress Scale (CSS-HIV), the Chinese Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the Chinese Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) were administered to all participants, and 38 of the participants were selected randomly to be re-tested in four weeks after the initial testing. Results Our data supported that a revised 17-item CSS-HIV had adequate psychometric properties. It consisted of 3 factors: emotional stress (6 items), social stress (6 items) and instrumental stress (5 items). The overall Cronbach's a was 0.906, and the test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.832. The revised CSS-HIV was significantly correlated with the number of HIV-related symptoms, as well as scores on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, indicating acceptable concurrent validity. Conclusion The 17-item Chinese version of the SS-HIV has potential research and clinical utility in identifying important stressors among the Chinese HIV-infected population and in understanding the effects of stress on adjustment to HIV.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available