ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the abbreviated technology anxiety scale among older patients with stroke: a translation and validation study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the clinical care and rehabilitation of older patients with stroke, the application of technology has become increasingly prevalent, yet the issue of technology anxiety among this population has not received sufficient attention. Studies regarding technology anxiety in older patients with stroke are still rare in China due to the lack of reliable tools. This makes it difficult to accurately assess the actual level and core triggers of technology anxiety in older patients with stroke, thereby hindering the in-depth development of related studies. Information related to technology anxiety in Chinese older patients with stroke is still needed. Therefore, it is urgent to supplement research data on technology anxiety tailored to the characteristics of Chinese older patients with stroke, so as to provide data support and theoretical evidence for the formulation of subsequent intervention strategies. Objective: To translate the Abbreviated Technology Anxiety Scale (ATAS) into Chinese and test the reliability and validity of the Chinese version among older patients with stroke. Methods: Following Brislin's translation principles, the original scale was subjected to forward translation, back-translation, and cultural adaptation to form the Chinese version of ATAS (C-ATAS). Using convenience sampling, 203 older patients with stroke from a tertiary hospital in Tianjin were recruited between November 2024 and April 2025 for a questionnaire survey to evaluate the reliability and validity of the C-ATAS. Results: The C-ATAS comprised 11 items and was a unidimensional scale. Exploratory factor analysis extracted one common factor, with factor loadings of items ranging from 0.747 to 0.964. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.963, the split-half reliability was 0.962, and the test-retest reliability was 0.812. The content validity at the item level was 0.833-1.000, and the average content validity at the scale level was 0.970. Conclusion: The C-ATAS demonstrates good reliability and validity, making it an effective evaluation tool for technology anxiety in older patients with stroke. This study provides a reliable measurement tool for relevant clinical interventions and research on technology anxiety older patients with stroke. Future research should conduct more large-sample and multi-center studies to further verify the practicality and psychometric properties of the C-ATAS in other populations, as well as examine its psychometric properties across different cultural contexts.
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.