Translation and validation of the Chinese‐Cantonese version of the Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self‐Care Scale in Hong Kong adolescent girls

Aims and objectives To translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese‐Cantonese version of the Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self‐Care Scale. Background Adolescent girls prefer engaging in self‐care activities for dysmenorrhoea. The Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self‐Care Scale is a reliable and valid scale for measuring the self‐care behaviour of adolescent girls with dysmenorrhoea. However, it has not been validated in Hong Kong population. Design A cross‐sectional design. Methods In phase one, the Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self‐Care Scale was translated into Chinese‐Cantonese and was reviewed by an expert panel for the semantic equivalence and content validity. In phase two, the Chinese‐Cantonese version of Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self‐Care Scale was administered to 396 girls with dysmenorrhoea. The construct validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis and correlated with the Chinese version of the Generalized Self‐Efficacy Scale. The reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alpha and test–retest reliability. Results Item 13 related to school nurses was deleted because of its poor relevance to the Hong Kong situation. Four items (items 26–29) related to the medical‐orientated behaviours were considered by the expert panel as not relevant to the self‐care construct in Hong Kong population. Therefore, confirmatory factor analyses were carried out to 39‐item Chinese‐Cantonese‐Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self‐Care Scale (deletion of item 13) and the 35‐item Chinese‐Cantonese‐Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self‐Care Scale (with further deletion of items 26–29). Confirmatory factor analysis did not confirm the 39‐item Chinese‐Cantonese‐Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self‐Care Scale, but the results showed the goodness of fit in the 35‐item of Chinese‐Cantonese‐Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self‐Care Scale (root‐mean‐square error of approximation = 0·075, standardised root‐mean‐square residual = 0·078, normed fit index = 0·95, non‐normed fit index = 0·96, comparative fit index = 0·96). Significant correlations with Chinese version of the Generalized Self‐Efficacy Scale (r = 0·46, p