Revision of the Self-rating Scale of Systemic Family Dynamics Based on the Applicability among College Students in Southwest China
Download PDF
$currentUrl="http://$_SERVER[HTTP_HOST]$_SERVER[REQUEST_URI]"

Keywords

Systemic family dynamics
Depression
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

DOI

10.26689/ssr.v6i6.7333

Submitted : 2024-06-11
Accepted : 2024-06-26
Published : 2024-07-11

Abstract

Objective: To revise the self-rating scale of systemic family dynamics (SSFD) based on its applicability among college students in southwest China. Methods: The study conducted a survey using the Chinese version of the self-rating scale of systemic family dynamics (SSFD) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies depression scale (CES-D) on 3,122 college students from Sichuan, Chongqing, and Guizhou. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the items of SSFD by SPSS, followed by confirmatory factor analysis by Amos. Results: Based on the factor analysis, the systemic logic dimension of the original scale was removed, retaining three dimensions: family atmosphere, individualization, and disease concepts. The number of items was reduced from 23 to 14. The revised scale’s overall Cronbach’s alpha was 0.914, with dimension-specific Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.689 to 0.905. All dimensions and the total score of the revised SSFD showed significant negative correlations with depression (-0.193**, -0.237**, -0.086**, -0.168**). The confirmatory factor analysis showed good fit indices (GFI = 0.943, IFI = 0.950, CFI = 0.950, NFI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.069, SMRA = 0.037). Conclusion: The revised SISFD scale features a clear structure and meets measurement standards, making it suitable for measuring systemic family dynamics among southwest China college students.

References

Mervi KR, 1997, Family Dynamics of Families with Mental Health Problems in Finland. Advanced Nursing, 26(6): 1111–1116.

Kang CY, Zhao XD, Xu XF, et al., 2001, The Questionnaire of Systemic Family Dynamics: Development, Reliability and Validity. Chinese Journal of Mental Health, 15(2): 92–95.

Yang JZ, Kang CY, Zhao XD, et al., 2002, The Self-rating Inventory of Systematic Family Dynamics: Development, Reliability and Validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 10(4): 263–265.

Zeng WN, Zhao XD, Wan CH, et al., 2014, Revision of Self-rating Scale of Systemic Family Dynamics and its Applicability in University Students. Journal of Guangdong Medical College, 32(2): 247–250.

Zhang J, Wu ZY, Fang G, et al., 2010, Development of the Chinese Age Norms of CES-D in Urban Area. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 24(2): 139–143.

Tang DD, Wen ZL, 2020, Statistical Approaches for Testing Common Method Bias: Problems and Suggestions, Journal of Psychological Science, 43(01): 215–223.

Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T, 2010, Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Five-step Guide for Novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3): 1–13.

Corner S, 2009, Choosing the Right Type of Rotation in PCA and EFA. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 13(3): 20–25.

Suárez AJ, Pedrosa I, Lozano LM, 2018, Using Reversed Items in Likert Scales: A Questionable Practice. Psicothema, 30(2): 149–158.

Ainur AK, Sayang MD, Jannoo Z, et al., 2017, Sample Size and Non-normality Effects on Goodness of Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models. Pertanika Journal of Science & Technology, 25(2): 575–586.

Li JA, 2011, Study of Family Dynamics in Depression Patients’ Family, Medical Journal of Chinese People’s Health, 23(15): 1846–1850.