Page 55 - JCBP-3-2

Journal of Clinical and
Basic Psychosomatics Interpersonal relationship rating scale

Relationship Adaptation subscale from the Chinese
College Student Adaptation Scale (CCSAS) compiled
by Fang et al. Specifically, Items 3, 5, 10, 15, 19,
15
21, 26, and 30 were adapted from the Interpersonal
Relationship Comprehensive Diagnostic Scale; Items
8 and 25 were references from the Interpersonal
Adaptation subscale of the CCSAS; Items 11 and 24
were compiled from the IRI with modifications; and
Items 13, 18, and 29 were modified from the ITS.
ii. Open-ended surveys: Data were collected from open-
ended surveys of clinically observed individuals
with significant interpersonal difficulties, healthy
individuals, and their family members. Representative
information collected from interviews was selected,
and written language adjustments and meaning
summaries were made to align with measurement
Figure 1. The flowchart of scale development requirements, contributing to Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12,
14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 27, and 28.
responses due to incomplete answers or identical iii. Expert review and modification: Adjustments and
responses, 547 valid questionnaires were retained modifications were made based on theoretical
(Sample 1). Subsequently, the questionnaires were structure and expert opinions. Two experts in
distributed nationwide through the Questionnaire psychology and three in psychiatry were consulted
Star platform, yielding 335 valid responses (Sample to analyze the scale’s structural system and item
2). The total sample size for the second stage was 882 expression. The scale was modified based on their
valid questionnaires, with a validity rate of 92.65%. feedback and suggestions for improvement.
Among these participants, 278 (31.52%) were male
and 604 (68.48%) were female, with ages ranging from 2.3. Criterion measures
14 to 78 years (mean age = 24.61 ± 13.72 years). 2.3.1. Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7)

2.2. Questionnaire development The GAD-7 is an operable, simple, and convenient self-
The Interpersonal Relationship Rating Scale, initially assessment scale for anxiety symptoms, consisting of
developed for the current study, consists of 30 items seven items. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-type
(Table A1) and is structured around five dimensions scale ranging from 0 (“never”) to 3 (“almost every day”),
derived from theoretical conceptualization: general social with total scores ranging from 0 to 21. The scale has been
16
competence (Items 1, 3, 9, 14, 21, 25), self-esteem level validated to demonstrate good reliability and validity. In
(Items 2, 7, 12, 17, 23, 28), interpersonal trust (Items 4, 8, 13, this study, GAD-7 was used to identify emotional problems,
18, 22, 29), empathetic support (Items 6, 11, 16, 20, 24, 27), categorizing participants with moderate or higher
16
and heterosexual interactions (Items 5, 10, 15, 19, 26, 30), as anxiety (GAD ≥ 10) as the emotional disorder group.
detailed in Table 1. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type The discriminant validity of the scale was examined by
scale, with 1 = “completely inconsistent,” 2 = “comparatively comparing the differences in scores between the emotional
inconsistent,” 3 = “unsure,” 4 = “comparatively consistent,” disorder and non-disorder groups.
and 5 = “completely consistent.” Higher scores indicate a 2.3.2. Patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)
better interpersonal status of the individual.
The PHQ-9 is a widely used tool for identifying depressive
The development of the items was based on the 17
following sources: symptoms and assessing their severity. It includes nine
i. Reference to existing scales: Items were adapted from items, each rated on a 4-point Likert-type rating scale
existing interpersonal relationship assessment tools, ranging from 0 to 3, with higher total scores reflecting more
with linguistic adjustments and corrections made to fit severe depressive symptoms. The scale has been validated
to have good reliability and validity in both special and
the current theoretical framework. Sources included general populations. 18,19
the Interpersonal Relationships Comprehensive
Diagnostic Scale compiled by Zheng, the Chinese The PHQ-9 was used in this study to differentiate and
13
version of the IRI, the ITS, and the Interpersonal screen for emotional problems, with participants scoring

Volume 3 Issue 2 (2025) 49 doi: 10.36922/jcbp.3625