[Development and evaluation of the simplified Chinese versions of motion sickness susceptibility questionnaire]

Objective: To develop and evaluate the simplified Chinese versions of motion sickness susceptibility questionnaire (MSSQ)-long (MSSQ-L) and MSSQ-short (MSSQ-S). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in May 2023 among 3 426 university students at North China University of Science and Technology. The Chinese versions of MSSQ-L and MSSQ-S were distributed, and item selection for Simplified Chinese versions of MSSQ-L and MSSQ-S was performed based on item response rates, item-total correlations, Cronbach's alpha coefficients, and standard deviations. Forty-five male and forty-five female participants were recruited from the initial survey population to complete Coriolis acceleration endurance testing and fill out the simplified Chinese versions of MSSQ-L and MSSQ-S, and Graybiel symptom severity score questionnaire. Internal consistency, external consistency, criterion validity, discriminant validity, and predictive accuracy for motion sickness severity were assessed. Results: A total of 3 111 valid responses were received for the Chinese versions of MSSQ, yielding an effective response rate of 90.8% (3 111/3 426). Among the 3 111 students surveyed, there were 965 males and 2 146 females, with a mean age of (19.5±1.4) years. The highest usage rates for item were observed for cars (98.9%, 3 077/3 111) and buses (98.8%, 3 073/3 111). The simplified Chinese versions of MSSQ-L and MSSQ-S consisted of four and eight items, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.900 and 0.953 for the simplified Chinese versions of MSSQ-S and MSSQ-L, respectively, with test-retest reliabilities of 0.895 and 0.908. Criterion validity coefficients were 0.814 and 0.765 for the simplified Chinese versions of MSSQ-S and MSSQ-L, respectively. In terms of discriminant validity, significant differences were observed between mild and moderate susceptibility groups [0(0, 3) vs 6(2, 10), P=0.006] and between moderate and severe susceptibility groups [6(2, 10) vs 9(6, 13), P=0.030] for the simplified Chinese version of MSSQ-S. Significant differences were also observed between mild and moderate susceptibility groups [5(0, 3) vs 7(3, 10), P=0.001], but not between moderate and severe susceptibility groups [7(3, 10) vs 7(3, 10), P=0.081] for simplified Chinese version of MSSQ-L. The overall predictive accuracy for motion sickness severity improved from 55.6% (50/90) to 62.2% (56/90) for the simplified Chinese version of MSSQ-S and from 54.4% (49/90) to 58.9% (53/90) for the simplified Chinese version of MSSQ-L, but with no statistically significant differences (both P>0.05). Conclusions: The simplified Chinese versions of MSSQ-L and MSSQ-S demonstrates good reliability and validity. The simplified Chinese version of MSSQ-S exhibits satisfactory discriminant validity, and can serve as a simple and efficient tool for assessing motion sickness susceptibility.