Validation of the Chinese Version of Relaxation Sensitivity Index: A Tool for Predicting Treatment Effect in Mindfulness Interventions.
Jieting Zhang, Christina M. Luberto, Qi Huang, Jin Kuang, Juan Zhong, Albert Yeung, Liye Zou
Frontiers in Public Health December 20, 2021 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.809572 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Scale translation and validation study Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 1,062 |
| Population | Chinese college students |
| Measures | Relaxation Sensitivity Index (RSI) |
| Topics | Meditation |
| Keywords | Humans Reproducibility of results China Surveys and questionnaires Asian people Factor analysis Validity Anxiety sensitivity Relaxation-induced anxiety Relaxation sensitivity |
| Key points | The Chinese version of the Relaxation Sensitivity Index showed a three-factor structure (Social appealing, Social performance, Physical concerns) that differs from the Western version, with good internal consistency (alphas 0.750-0.860) and support for convergent and predictive validity, but relatively low test-retest reliability (rs 0.525-0.685). Social performance concerns uniquely predicted social anxiety (p < 0.001) but not relaxation-induced anxiety (p = 0.442). The authors conclude the factor structure's robustness and test-retest reliability were weaker than expected. |
Abstract
Background: The Relaxation Sensitivity Index (RSI) measures relaxation-related fears developed and validated in western samples. The RSI captures three facets of fear regarding relaxation: physical, cognitive, and social concerns. This study aimed to translate and identify the factor structure of the Chinese version of the RSI.
Methods: In a preliminary study, 26 items were generated mainly by translation and modified from the original RSI. In Study 1, factor analysis and internal consistency reliability analysis were conducted on separated half samples of 597 Chinese college students. In Study 2, test-retest reliability, convergent, and predictive criterion validity were examined based on 465 Chinese college students.
Results: Fourteen items were selected based on the factor loading and item prevalence in the preliminary study. Factor analysis based on Study 1 identified three factors: Social appealing, Social performance, and Physical concerns. In general, the RSI demonstrated good internal consistency (αs = 0.750-0.860), convergent validity and predictive criterion validity, while the test-retest reliability is relatively low (rs = 0.525-0.685). Notably, less related to the other two factors, Social performance concerns may be a unique factor solely predicting social anxiety (p <0.001), but not relaxation-induced anxiety (p = 0.442).
Conclusion: The Chinese version of the RSI possesses a factor structure different from the western population. The robustness of factor structure and test-retest reliability was not as good as expected. Further research is warranted to explore the validity of the RSI in Chinese samples.