ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Psychometric Validation of the Chinese Version of the Virtual Reality System Usability Questionnaire.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The usability questionnaire of the English version of the virtual reality system was localized to verify its reliability and validity in ICU patients, providing a scientific assessment tool for clinical practice. Methods: The Brislin translation model was adopted to complete the cross-cultural adaptation of the scale. A total of 331 ICU patients from a tertiary hospital in Zhengzhou City were included through convenience sampling for item analysis, validity and reliability tests. Results: The Chinese version of the scale consists of 3 dimensions and a total of 9 items. The Cronbach's α coefficient of the total scale was 0.821 and the split-half reliability was 0.782. The content validity index at the item level ranged from 0.833 to 1.000, and the average content validity index at the scale level was 0.978. Exploratory factor analysis extracted three common factors, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 67.017%. The factor loadings of each item ranged from 0.609 to 0.876, and no items were deleted. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the standardized path coefficients of all items were within the acceptable range. These results indicate that the adapted questionnaire is a psychometrically sound instrument. Conclusion: The Chinese version of VRSUQ has good reliability, validity and cultural adaptability. It not only fills the gap of a VR system usability assessment tool that is both culturally and clinically applicable for ICU patients in China, but also overcomes the limitations of existing international tools. Proven tools can be directly applied to clinical practice to guide the optimization of VR intervention measures, thereby enhancing patient experience and intervention effectiveness. In the future, its universality needs to be verified through multi-center research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.