Validation of the Chinese version of the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS)

Abstract Background Preoperative anxiety is an unpleasant state of tension that may impact patients’ post-operative pain and satisfaction. The level of preoperative anxiety should be routinely identified. The Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) is a self-reported questionnaire that is used to quickly assess preoperative anxiety and information needs with good psychometric properties. Objectives To validate the Chinese version of the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) and to explore coping strategies used by patients in dealing with surgery and anesthetic. Methods The cross-cultural validation of APAIS involved the translation of a Chinese version of APAIS and an investigation of its psychometric properties and clinical applicability. Forward-back translation and a pilot study were performed to produce a Chinese adaptation of APAIS. The inpatients of the orthopedic, otolaryngology, and general surgery department scheduled for general anesthesia surgery were enrolled to complete psychometric testing. The reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were calculated to assess construct validity. The criteria validity was analyzed using the correlation between APAIS and State-trait anxiety inventory-state (STAI-S) and Visual analogue scale-anxiety (VAS-A). Coping styles were evaluated using the Medical Coping Modes Questionnaire (MCMQ) score that covered three domains: confrontation, avoidance, and resignation. The impact of different coping styles on patients’ anxiety was explored. Results A total of 204 valid questionnaires were collected the day before surgery. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.862 for the anxiety scale and 0.830 for the information scale. Exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation revealed two factors that explained 76.45% of the total variances. A confirmatory factor analysis showed a two-factor model with an adequate model fit (root mean square error of approximation: 0.073, goodness-of-fit: 0.966). The APAIS anxiety score significantly correlated with STAI-S ( r = 0.717, P < 0.01) and VAS-A ( r = 0.720, P < 0.01). For the three coping strategies, preoperative anxiety had a low correlation with confrontation ( r = 0.33, P < 0.01) and resignation ( r = 0.22, P < 0.05). Conclusions The Chinese version of APAIS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing preoperative anxiety. Use of this measurement tool for Chinese patients is feasible and shows promising results.