Page 56 - JCBP-3-2

Journal of Clinical and
Basic Psychosomatics Interpersonal relationship rating scale

Table 1. Retained items after initial scale testing
Items 1 2 3 4 5
1. I don’t feel rushed or nervous in social situations. ‮
2. I can understand the different views of others when I disagree with them. ‮
3. I am willing to take the initiative to make new friends. ‮
4. I don’t worry about people having a bad opinion of my performance. ‮
*5. I often struggle with how to communicate with others, and I often feel that I can’t get a word in edgewise at gatherings. ‮
6. Sometimes, I think about things from other people’s points of view so that I can better understand their feelings. ‮
7. I’m willing to let my new peers know the truest side of me. ‮
8. I am on an equal footing with the opposite sex when interacting with them. ‮
9. I don’t feel shy and uncomfortable around the opposite sex. ‮
10. When someone needs help, I can offer advice and support in a way that he is comfortable with. ‮
11. I believe that socializing with the opposite sex is an indispensable part of human relationships. ‮
12. I am able to sincerely listen when others talk about topics that do not interest me. ‮
13. I don’t avoid gatherings of many people, and I don’t feel anxious or apprehensive. ‮
14. When others tell me their troubles, I can understand their feelings and give them encouragement. ‮
15. When I am in trouble, I feel sure that someone will be willing to help me. ‮
16. I don’t get jealous or fall into self-denial when I find out that someone else has something better than me. ‮
17. I am good at using language to communicate with others. ‮
18. I know how to advance a conversation with the opposite sex.
Note: *Is a reverse scoring item.

10 (PHQ ≥ 10) or above classified as having moderate or matrix, followed by maximum variance rotation to refine
higher levels of depression, forming the emotional disorder the final factor loading matrix. The appropriateness of the
group. Discriminant validity was examined by comparing factor analyses was examined using the Kaiser–Meyer–
17
the Interpersonal Relationship Rating Scale scores between Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and
the emotional disorder and non-disorder groups. the final number of factors was determined with the aid of
a scree plot.
2.3.3. Interpersonal relationship comprehensive
diagnostic scale Validated factor analysis was conducted on the second-
stage sample (n = 547) using Mplus 8.0 to examine model
This scale consists of 28 items and assesses the degree of 2
interpersonal relationship distress across four dimensions: fit. The scales were further examined for reliability and
interpersonal communication difficulties, interpersonal validity using SPSS 22.0, including assessments of internal
friendship difficulties, interpersonal interaction difficulties, consistency reliability, test–retest reliability, construct
and heterosexual communication difficulties. Each item is validity, criterion-related validity, and discriminant
rated on a two-point scale, with “yes” scoring 1 and “no” validity.
scoring 0. Higher scores indicate more severe interpersonal 3. Results
behavioral distress. Previous studies have demonstrated
that this scale possesses good reliability and validity. 13 3.1. Preliminary questionnaire analysis and factor
naming
2.4. Statistical processing
3.1.1. Item analysis
The validity of the questionnaire was assessed, and invalid
responses – such as those with omissions or patterns of The present study used the correlation between individual
highly regular answers – were eliminated. Data from the first items and the total score to analyze item differentiation. In
stage sample (n = 461) were analyzed using the Statistical general, the total score reflects the participants’ level of the
1
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 22.0, including measured trait, and a high correlation between a single item
question-total correlation analysis and exploratory factor and the total score indicates good differentiation. Pearson
analysis. Principal component analysis was then used to correlation analysis was performed between each item and
extract common factors and generate the initial loading the total score to screen the items. Items with correlation

Volume 3 Issue 2 (2025) 50 doi: 10.36922/jcbp.3625