Post Traumatic Growth for Gestational Diabetic Patients During COVID-19: Role of Partner Supportive Communication and Family Environment

Figures & data

Table 1 Validity, Reliability and Descriptive Statistics of Latent Constructs

Construct	Actual Range	Mean	SD	AVE	Composite Reliability	Cronbach’s α
Post Traumatic Growth	1.14–5.46	4.387	1.297	0.698	0.920	0.937
Partner Supportive Communication	2.20–4.55	4.07	0.915	0.697	0.901	0.783
Family Environment	1.87–4.67	4.97	0.957	0.716	0.859	0.759

Table 2 Fornell-Larcker Criterion for Discriminant Validity

Construct	PTG	PSC	FE
Post Traumatic Growth (PTG)	0.857
Partner Supportive Communication (PSC)	0.567	0.740
Family Environment (FE)	0.556	0.643	0.763

Table 3 The Structural Model and Path Estimates

Construct and Measurement Items	β	M(ST-D)	t	p	95% CI
Displaying care→post traumatic growth	0.159	0.1601 (0.057)	2.792	0.005	[0.045, 0.261]
Displaying care × family environment→ post traumatic growth	−0.209	−0.209 (0.043)	4.850	0.000	[−0.298, -0.134]
Effective listening→ post traumatic growth	0.097	0.109 (0.072)	1.355	0.176	[−0.023, -0.266]
Effective listening × family environment→ post traumatic growth	−0.144	−0.141(0.075)	1.928	0.054	[−0.282, 0.009]
Elicitation of thoughts and feelings→ post traumatic growth	0.234	0.239 (0.079)	2.957	0.003	[0.090, 0.412]
Elicitation of thoughts and feelings × family environment→ post traumatic growth	0.179	0.172 (0.051)	3.501	0.001	[0.060, 0.271]
Empathy→ post traumatic growth	−0.018	−0.016 (0.039)	0.456	0.648	[−0.091,0.065]
Empathy × family environment→ post traumatic growth	0.002	0.005 (0.057)	0.029	0.977	[−0.106, 0.119]
Family environment→ post traumatic growth	0.507	0.488 (0.067)	7.582	0.000	[0.346, 0.606]

short-legendFigure 1