痴呆恐惧量表的汉化及信效度检验

目的汉化痴呆恐惧量表,并在社区老年人中检验其信效度。方法根据Brislin翻译原则翻译痴呆恐惧量表,通过专家咨询和预试验进行文化调适,采用便利抽样法选取230名社区老年人进行问卷调查,检验中文版量表的信度和效度。结果中文版痴呆恐惧量表包含认知、社会和躯体3个维度,涉及痴呆症的体验与认识(7个条目)、担心家庭负担(4个条目)、羞耻感(3个条目)和躯体反应(4个条目)4个因子共18个条目。量表内容效度指数为0.934,各条目内容效度指数为0.857~1.000;探索性因子分析共提取4个公因子,累积方差贡献率为77.464%;总量表Cronbach′sα系数为0.893,重测信度为0.854。结论中文版痴呆恐惧量表在社区老年人中应用信效度较好,可用于老年人痴呆恐惧的识别和评估。     

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。     

Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) remains one of the standard and most widely used methods for demonstrating construct validity of new instruments. However, the model for EFA makes assumptions which may not be applicable to all quality of life (QOL) instruments, and as a consequence the results from EFA may be misleading. In particular, EFA assumes that the underlying construct of QOL (and any postulated subscales or factors) may be regarded as being reflected by the items in those factors or subscales. QOL instruments, however, frequently contain items such as diseases, symptoms or treatment side effects, which are causal indicators. These items may cause reduction in QOL for those patients experiencing them, but the reverse relationship need not apply: not all patients with a poor QOL need be experiencing the same set of symptoms. Thus a high level of a symptom item may imply that a patient's QOL is likely to be poor, but a poor level of QOL need not imply that the patient probably suffers from that symptom. This is the reverse of the common EFA model, in which it is implicitly assumed that changes in QOL and any subscales cause or are likely to be reflected by corresponding changes in all their constituent items; thus the items in EFA are called effect indicators. Furthermore, disease-related clusters of symptoms, or treatment-induced side-effects, may result in different studies finding different sets of items being highly correlated; for example, a study involving lung cancer patients receiving surgery and chemotherapy might find one set of highly correlated symptoms, whilst prostate cancer patients receiving hormone therapy would have a very different symptom correlation structure. Since EFA is based upon analyzing the correlation matrix and assuming all items to be effect indicators, it will extract factors representing consequences of the disease or treatment. These factors are likely to vary between different patient subgroups, according to the mode of treatment or the disease type and stage. Such factors contain little information about the relationship between the items and any underlying QOL constructs. Factor analysis is largely irrelevant as a method of scale validation for those QOL instruments that contain causal indicators, and should only be used with items which are effect indicators.     

Reading research critically. I. An introduction to appraisal: designs and objectives

• ? This is the first of two articles providing an introduction to appraising published research critically.
• ? In this paper three styles of research are presented and the basic types of research objectives and designs are briefly described.

     

Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?

Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city.Methods. Women 50 to 70 years old with and without screening mammograms 10 to 14 months prior were identified from fiscal, clinic, and radiology records at a military care system (MCS) and a county-funded system (CFS) for indigents. Mammogram status was verified through radiology records. Women were excluded if mammograms were diagnostic, done for other than annual screening, or had abnormal results. Interview ers blinded to mammogram status surveyed randomly selected eligible women.Results. For 62 screened/31 unscreened MCS women and 78 screened/61 unscreened CFS women, specificity was similar, at 65 and 62%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity varied significantly: 95% versus 79% (P = 0.011). Primary ethonocultural groups were Euro-American (MCS—60%) and Mexican American (CFS—85%). Although not different in specificity of recall (67% versus 61%), these major subgroups significantly differed in sensitivity (97% versus 80%, P = 0.017), proportion of true negatives due to never having a mammogram (35% versus 57%, P = 0.003), and proportion with ≥high school education (78% versus 19%, P < 0.00001).Conclusion. Systematic differences in recall validity may exist and compromise the accuracy of intergroup comparisons.     

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Perinatal PTSD Questionnaire (PPQ): A Preliminary Study

We evaluated the validity of the Perinatal Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Questionnaire (PPQ) as a measure of posttraumatic stress symptomatology. Mothers of high-risk infants (N = 91) and healthy, full-term infants (N = 51) answered the PPQ and two other convergent measures of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, the Impact of Event Scale (IES) and the Penn Inventory (PI). The Need for Cognition Scale (NCS) was used as a divergent measure. Correlations among the convergent measures were significantly greater than the correlation between the PPQ and NCS. High-risk mothers also scored higher than normal mothers on the PPQ and IES. The results support the validity of the PPQ.     

Repeatability and validity of an upper limb and neck discomfort questionnaire: the utility of the standardized Nordic questionnaire

The repeatability and validity of a questionnaire for upper limb and neck complaints were assessed in a population of 105 hospital outpatients with a range of upper limb and neck disorders (including cervical spondylosis, adhesive capsulitis, lateral epicondylitis, carpal tunnel syndrome and Raynaud's phenomenon). Subjects were asked to complete a modified Nordic-style upper limb and neck discomfort questionnaire on two occasions closely spaced in time. The repeatability of their responses was assessed by calculating a kappa coefficient (kappa), and the sensitivity and specificity of component items in the questionnaire were determined for specific diagnostic categories of upper limb and neck disorder. Symptom reports for pain in the upper limb and neck, pain interfering with physical activities, neurological symptoms and blanching were all found to be highly repeatable (kappa = 0.63-0.90). A number of regional pain reports proved to be very sensitive in relation to specific upper limb disorders, but, with the exception of reported finger blanching in patients with Raynaud's phenomenon, none proved to have a good specificity (range = 0.33-0.38). We conclude that a modified Nordic-style questionnaire is repeatable and sensitive, and is likely to have a high utility in screening and surveillance. However a complementary examination schedule of adequate specificity and repeatability is essential to establish a clinical diagnosis.