# Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire

## TL;DR

This study translated and validated a Chinese version of a questionnaire to measure alarm fatigue among ICU healthcare professionals in China.

## Contribution

The study provides a validated Chinese version of the Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire for use in Chinese ICU settings.

## Key findings

- The Chinese version of the questionnaire has 9 items and 2 dimensions with strong psychometric properties.
- The questionnaire demonstrated good reliability with Cronbach’s α of 0.855 and McDonald’s ω of 0.842.
- Content validity indices ranged from 0.80 to 1.00, indicating strong validity.

## Abstract

This study aimed to translate the English version of the Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire (not the original German version) into Chinese and evaluate its psychometric properties among ICU healthcare professionals in China.

The Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire was translated into Chinese following Brislin’s translation model and finalized after a pre-survey. A total of 674 questionnaires were distributed. The 634 valid responses were randomly split into two subsamples for exploratory factor analysis (n = 317) and confirmatory factor analysis (n = 317). Item analysis was performed using the critical ratio method, correlation coefficient method, and homogeneity test. Validity was assessed through content validity, construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and criterion-related validity. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s α coefficient, McDonald’s ω coefficient, split-half reliability, and test–retest reliability.

The Chinese version consisted of 9 items and 2 dimensions, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 68.346%. The item-level content validity index ranged from 0.80 to 1.00, and the scale-level content validity index/average was 0.954. The average variance extracted and composite reliability values for each dimension met the criteria, demonstrating good convergent and discriminant validity. The criterion-related validity was 0.567. Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.855, McDonald’s ω coefficient was 0.842, split-half reliability was 0.871, and the test–retest reliability was 0.719. No significant floor or ceiling effects were observed.

The Chinese version demonstrates good psychometric properties and can be considered a valid tool for assessing alarm fatigue levels in China.