Cited by 5Dermatology and Skin DiseasesHealth Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Translation and validation of a Chinese Version of the Parental Self-Efficacy with Eczema Care Index

Cheng, Nam Sze, Chau, Janita Pak Chun, Hon, Kam Lun Ellis, Chow, Chung Mo, Choi, Kai Chow, Lo, Suzanne Hoi Shan, Leung, Ting Fan·2020·Dermatology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Parental self-efficacy has been found to be a critical determinant of the efficacy of interventions intended to enhance the parental management of childhood eczema. OBJECTIVES: The psychometric properties of a translated Chinese version of the Parental Self-Efficacy with Eczema Care Index (C-PASECI) were examined. METHODS: The PASECI was translated in a 2-stage process involving both forward and backward translation. Subsequently, the psychometric properties of the C-PASECI were examined in a cohort of 147 Chinese parents or caregivers of children with eczema. Specifically, the internal consistency, 2-day test-retest reliability and construct validity were assessed. RESULTS: The C-PASECI received a Cronbach's αof 0.97, and the intraclass correlation coefficients of each item ranged from 0.93 to 0.99. Negative correlations were observed among the C-PASECI, Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Scale scores, indicating the acceptable convergent validity of the C-PASECI. The moderate correlation observed between the C-PASECI and General Self-Efficacy Scale (Pearson's r = 0.53, p < 0.001) reflected the acceptable concurrent validity of the C-PASECI. The results of confirmatory factor analysis supported the factorial validity of the C-PASECI. CONCLUSION: The C-PASECI appears to be a reliable and valid measure of parental self-efficacy in Chinese parents or caregivers of children with eczema.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000505450

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, N. S., Chau, J. P. C., Hon, K. L. E., Chow, C. M., Choi, K. C., Lo, S. H. S., & Leung, T. F.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Prince of Wales Hospital (CN)
Venue
Dermatology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2020
Volume
236
Issue
4
Pages
361-368
ISSN
  • 1018-8665 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9832
OpenAlex
W3005492344
Cited by
5
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
parental self-efficacy, pediatric atopic dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, Chinese translation, psychometric validation, caregiver self-efficacy, test-retest reliability, construct validity, convergent validity, factorial validity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Eczema, Female, Hong Kong, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Parents, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Self Care, Translations, Reproducibility of Results, Caregivers, Self Efficacy, Asian People, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review