Zarit burden interview among caregivers of community-dwelling older adults in a caribbean setting (Jamaica): Reliability and factor structure

The Zarit Burden Interview has been the most popularly used tool for measuring caregiver burden and with the 60 years and over population in Jamaica and developing countries expected to increase, caregiver burden and its assessment assume increased importance. Establishing the reliability and underlying factor structure of instruments such as the ZBI is critical. This study sought to determine the reliability of the Zarit Burden Interview and to assess its underlying factor structure. The ZBI was administered to 180 caregivers of community dwelling older persons in Jamaica in a nationally representative sample across four geographic health regions in 2016. The factor structure was identified using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess internal consistency/reliability of the instrument. The internal consistency/reliability of the ZBI instrument was high (Cronbach's α = 0.859) and the corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.134 to 0.730. The ZBI mean score was found to be 16.92 ± 12.04. EFA produced a six-factor model comprised of 19 items which explained 48.97% of total variance, and was subsequently reduced to four (37.27% of total variance) via the use of parallel analysis and scrutiny of confidence intervals. The four factors identified were ‘personal strain’, ‘social relations disruption’, ‘resource strain/imbalance’ and ‘role intensity’. The ZBI-22 tool is a reliable instrument for evaluating caregiver burden among community dwelling older persons in Jamaica. A four factor model has emerged providing greater insights on the underlying constructs of the ZBI, the most widely used caregiver burden assessment tool.     

基于大学生群体的三种手机成瘾量表信效度及应用的比较研究

目的 比较三种手机成瘾量表在大学生手机成瘾测量中的一致性。方法 选取合肥市3所本科高校的1004名大学生,采用手机成瘾指数量表（MPAI）、智能手机依赖量表（SAS）、智能手机依赖量表简版（SAS-SV）同时进行手机成瘾倾向的测量,采用匹兹堡睡眠质量指数量表（PSQI）进行睡眠质量的测量,对122位学生在首次测评两周后进行重测。用Pearson相关系数描述三个量表得分之间的相关性;用符合率和Kappa系数衡量手机成瘾判定结果的一致性;用t检验、方差分析、logistic回归进行手机成瘾与大学生基本特征、相关因素的关联分析。结果 MPAI与SAS、MPAI与SAS-SV、SAS与SAS-SV得分之间的Pearson相关系数分别为0.72、0.74、0.95（P＜0.010）。MPAI与SAS-SV判定手机成瘾结果的符合率为64.6％,Kappa值为0.32（P＜0.001）。t检验显示,性别、专业属性与量表得分之间,三个量表结果一致;方差分析显示年级与量表得分之间,SAS与MPAI、SAS-SV的结果不一致。Logistic回归分析显示,性别、年级、专业属性与手机成瘾之间,MPAI、SAS-SV结果一致;睡眠与手机成瘾之间,MPAI、SAS-SV结果不一致。结论 三种量表的信效度均较好;量表得分的相关性较高,但MPAI和SAS-SV判定手机成瘾的一致性较差;在手机成瘾相关因素分析上,量表间存在不一致的现象。     

戒毒人员健康状况评定量表的初步编制和考评

目的:初步编制评价戒毒人员整体健康水平的综合多维评定量表,并检验其信度和效度。方法:根据WHO的健康定义提出理论构想,查阅相关文献,听取各专家意见,形成初始量表。对949例戒毒人员进行实测后,检验其信效度。结果:(1)通过条目分析,确定量表由120个条目组成(包括效度量表的14条),分属四个维度11个因子,生理维度(D1)35条,心理A维度(D2)26条,心理B维度(D3) 31条,社会维度(D4)14条。(2)重测相关和Cronbaehα系数各因子为0.615～0.879和0.650～0.949,各维度为0.791～0.893和0.844～0.966,总量表为0.899和0.965,所有P<0.01。(3)探索性因子分析显示,各因子的因素负荷均在0.7以上。(4)验证性因素分析结果显示,(?)~2/df=2.415,CFI=0.842,TLI= 0.838,RMSEA=0.039。(5)总量表及生理维度、心理A维度、心理B维度、社会维度得分与QOL—DA的总分及相应维度分的相关系数分别为0.682、0.539、0.698、0.153、0.687(P<0.01)。结论:初步编制的戒毒人员健康状况评定量表,信度和效度均达到了心理测量学的要求。     

社区人群生活质量研究—Ⅲ生活质量问卷（QOLI）的编制

本文为社区人群生活质量系列研究之一。在湖南省有代表性的六个地区城乡分层随机采样４８００户家庭，对自编的多维生活质量问卷进行了心理测量学的检验。结果表明，本问卷具有一定的信度、效度与敏感性，可适用于社区普通人群成人生活质量的评估工具，研究特定人群（如老人、慢性病人等）生活质量综合评定工具时，也可作为参考。     

EPDS在产后抑郁筛查中应用

本研究共纳入１６７例在北医大一院产科病房住院分娩的产妇，所有产妇均评定了Ｅｄｉｎｂｕｒｇｈ产后抑郁量表（ＥＰＤＳ）。对部分产妇同时评定了Ｚｕｎｇ氏抑郁量表和Ｈａｍｉｔｌｏｎ抑郁量表。结果表明ＥＰＤＳ之灵敏度、特异性及总效率均令人满意。与Ｚｕｎｇ氏量表相比，ＥＰＤＳ的效度更高，是比较理想的产后抑郁筛查工具。     

职业紧张测量工具研究

目的 :研究适合评价我国职业人群职业紧张状态的测量工具。方法 :根据目前国际上通用的标准 ,从国外大量现用的职业紧张测量工具中选择信度、效度较高的、使用较广的测量工具进行研究和修订。研究内容包括职业紧张因素 ,紧张反应 ,个体因素 ,缓解因素等。研究对象为六种不同职业的作业者共 65 6人。研究方法为职业流行病学方法。信度的评估指标为内部一致性信度指标 ,包括平均项目 -总分相关系数和Cronbach’α系数 ,效度的评估指标为所研究的因素与各种相关因素之间的相关系数和所研究因素在紧张结局变量系统多元回归方程中的因素贡献率。结果 :职业紧张测量工具的平均项目 -总分相关系数绝大多数均在 0 60以上。Crohach’α系数绝大多数均在 0 70以上 ,大多数样本和总样本中的职业紧张因素、个体因素和中和缓解因素与紧张结局之间的相关系数绝大多数具有显著性和非常显著性意义。结论 :所研究的职业紧张测量工具均具有可接受的信度和效度水平。可在实际工作中加以推广应用。     

Issues of reliability and validity in the measurement of challenging behaviour (behavioural difficulties) in learning disability: a discussion of implications for nursing research and practice

• ? The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate on issues related to the reliability and validity of measurement of challenging behaviour (behavioural difficulties) in learning disability. A number of practical, theoretical and methodological issues are discussed that have significance for the nurse both as practitioner and/or researcher in learning disability. These issues are equally important to both provider and purchaser of health care in order that resources can be most effectively targeted.
• ? The term ‘challenging behaviour’ would appear to be used both in literature and research synonymously with behavioural difficulties, this has implications for nurses in both their clinical practice and/or research. The author concludes by identifying a need to replace the term challenging behaviour, with ‘behavioural difficulties’. It is argued that such a term is much more explicit in meaning and amenable to operational definition, thus enabling empirical study. Such a proposal will not be accepted by all as justifiable; this is because some might argue that adopting the term behavioural difficulties may be a retrograde step that perpetuates negative imagery and inappropriate labelling of people with a learning disability.

     

Reliability of the Dominic-R: A Young Child Mental Health Questionnaire Combining Visual and Auditory Stimuli

Reliability of the Dominic-R, a. questionnaire combining visual and auditory stimuli, was tested in 340 community children aged 6 to 11 years. Test-retest reliability of symptoms of, and of symptom scores of, DSM-III-R disorders including simple phobias, separation anxiety disorder, overanxious disorder, depression/dysthymia, attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder was assessed. Most symptoms yielded kappas greater than .40, and ICCs ranged from .74 to .81. In conclusion, reliability of the Dominic-R compares favourably with that of other child assessment questionnaires.     

Comparison of nutritional risk screening tools in patients on admission to hospital

Background and aims Undernutrition has been frequently reported in patients on admission to hospital. Because this is not always detected promptly, screening for nutritional risk on admission has been widely advocated. Although there is no universally accepted ‘gold standard’ for defining undernutrition, the definition used by McWhirter, J.P. & Pennington, C.R. [(1994) Br. Med. J. 308 , 945] has been widely used by clinical nutrition specialists. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of two frequently used nutritional risk screening tools in detecting undernutrition according to this definition. Methods Both the Nutrition Risk Index [Veterans Affairs Total Parenteral Nutrition Co‐operative Study Group (1991) N. Engl. J. Med. 325 , 525] and the Nutrition Risk Score [Reilly H.M. et al. (1995) Clin. Nutr. 14 , 269] were used to screen for undernutrition in 359 admissions to two acute teaching hospitals in Dublin. Undernutrition was defined as a Body Mass Index below 20 kg m^?2 and a triceps skinfold thickness or mid‐arm muscle circumference below the 15th percentile. Comparison of stratification of nutritional risk by the two screening tools was carried out. Results Both screening tools identified over 40% (Nutrition Risk Index, 44%; Nutrition Risk Score, 46%) of all patients assessed as at nutritional risk on admission. However, one‐third of the undernourished patients were classified as at no nutrition risk by the Nutrition Risk Index, while almost one‐fifth of those undernourished were classified as at low risk by the Nutrition Risk Score. The degree of nutritional risk differed with the screening tool used, the Nutrition Risk Score classifying 29% of all patients as high risk while the Nutrition Risk Index classified only 5% as in the high risk category. Conclusions Although a large proportion of patients on admission were classified as being at nutritional risk, the degree of risk was significantly different depending on the screening tool used. Both nutritional risk screening tools evaluated in this study failed to recognize many cases of undernutrition. Evaluation of the efficacy of nutritional screening tools should be promoted as seriously as the development of such tools.