精神障碍患者社会功能缺损评定量表的信效度分析

目的 检测精神障碍患者社会功能缺损评定量表(SSFD-MD)的信度和效度.方法 对1003例精神残疾鉴定患者施测,其中100例患者相隔1个月进行重测,并由2名熟悉SSFD-MD评分细则的评定人背对背测评.对其中300例同时实测社会功能缺陷筛选量表(SDSS)、住院精神病人社会功能评定量表(SSPI)、精神功能大体评定昔表(GAF)、简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)、世界卫生组织残疾评定量表Ⅱ(WHO-DASⅡ)、成人智残评定量表(ARSMD)及锥体外系副反应量表(RSESE).结果 ①信度:全量表总分及各分量表的Cronbach's α系数均大于0.90;各分量表及总分重测一致性在0.67～0.83之间;评分者信度在0.87～0.97之间.②效度:各分量表间的相关系数在0.46～0.74之间,各分量表与总分的相关系数在0.73～0.87之间,均具有显著性(P＜0.01);经方差最大化正交旋转后全量表提取5个主成分,累计解释的总变异为82.25%.SSFD-MD与SDSS、SSPI及GAF呈高度相关,分别为0.71,0.72和0.78;与BPRS、WHO-DASⅡ及成人智残评定量表呈中度相关,r分别为0.62,0.50与0.46;与锥体外系副反应量表(RSE-SE)呈低度相关(0.22),均差异具有显著性(P＜0.01).结论 SSFD-MD编制符合心理测量学的基本要求,具有良好的信度和效度.

Abstract：

Objective To test the reliability and validity of the rating scale of social function deficit due to mental disorders (SSFD-MD). Methods 1003 cases with mental disability evaluation were tested by SSFDMD. At sametime, 100 cases of 1003 cases were test-retested and back to back tested by two examiners. 300 cases of 1003 cases also were tested by social disability screening schedule( SDSS),scale of social function for psychosis inpatients(SSPI),global assessment function(GAF) ,the brief psychiatric rating scale(BPRS) ,WH0 disability assessment scale Ⅱ (WHO-DASⅡ ), adult rating scale of mentally disabled ( ARSMD) and rating scale for extrapyramidal side effects (RSESE). Results ①The Cronbach's α coefficients of the total score and all dimensions of SSFD-MD were more than 0.90. The test-retest reliability ranged from 0.67～0. 83 ,and the scorer reliability were 0. 87～0.97. ②The correlations between item scores ranged from 0.46 ～0.74(P＜0.01). The correlations between the factor scores and the total scores ranged from 0.73～0.87(P＜0.01). To extract five full-scale principal components after orthogonal rotation to maximize variance,the cumulative total variance explained was 82.25%.There were highly correlations between SSFD-MD and SDSS.SSPI and GAF,respectively ( r = 0. 71,0.72 and 0. 78). There were moderate correlations between SSFD-MD and BPRS WHO-DAS II ARSMD,respectively(0.62,0. 50 and 0.46). There was a low correlations between SSFD-MD and RSESE ( r = 0.22) ,but all correlations were significant(P＜0.01). Conclusion SSFD-MD has acceptable psychometrics properties on reliability and validity.     

精神障碍患者社会功能缺损评定量表的信效度分析

Objective To test the reliability and validity of the rating scale of social function deficit due to mental disorders (SSFD-MD). Methods 1003 cases with mental disability evaluation were tested by SSFDMD. At sametime, 100 cases of 1003 cases were test-retested and back to back tested by two examiners. 300 cases of 1003 cases also were tested by social disability screening schedule( SDSS),scale of social function for psychosis inpatients(SSPI),global assessment function(GAF) ,the brief psychiatric rating scale(BPRS) ,WH0 disability assessment scale Ⅱ (WHO-DASⅡ ), adult rating scale of mentally disabled ( ARSMD) and rating scale for extrapyramidal side effects (RSESE). Results ①The Cronbach's α coefficients of the total score and all dimensions of SSFD-MD were more than 0.90. The test-retest reliability ranged from 0.67～0. 83 ,and the scorer reliability were 0. 87～0.97. ②The correlations between item scores ranged from 0.46 ～0.74(P＜0.01). The correlations between the factor scores and the total scores ranged from 0.73～0.87(P＜0.01). To extract five full-scale principal components after orthogonal rotation to maximize variance,the cumulative total variance explained was 82.25%.There were highly correlations between SSFD-MD and SDSS.SSPI and GAF,respectively ( r = 0. 71,0.72 and 0. 78). There were moderate correlations between SSFD-MD and BPRS WHO-DAS II ARSMD,respectively(0.62,0. 50 and 0.46). There was a low correlations between SSFD-MD and RSESE ( r = 0.22) ,but all correlations were significant(P＜0.01). Conclusion SSFD-MD has acceptable psychometrics properties on reliability and validity.     

赔偿性神经症评定量表的编制与信效度分析

目的 编制并检验赔偿性神经症评定量表的信效度,为该病症与普通神经症及诈病的诊断与鉴别提供客观量化评定依据.方法 根据赔偿性神经症的起病及其相关因素、临床病症特点、检查中的表现、治疗与转归等,编制赔偿性神经症评定量表,对相关被试进行初试、修改及条目筛选后,再用于有赔偿因素的司法精神鉴定案例和有精神应激事件的普通神经症患者,其中普通神经症116例,赔偿性神经症58例,伪装组66例.结果 (1)量表总分对普通神经症、赔偿性神经症和伪装组的划界分分别为<36分、36～52分、>52分.(2)全量表的Cronnbach's α系数为0.940,Guttman分半信度为0.944,重测相关在0.820以上,评分者相关在0.812以上.(3)与专家诊断比较,判断总准确率88.3%,对赔偿性神经症判定的特异性91.2%,灵敏度79.3%.结论 赔偿性神经症评定量表符合心理测量学的基本要求,能为赔偿性神经症与普通神经症及伪装的区分鉴别提供相对客观量化的评定依据.     

脑外伤后人格改变评定量表的编制与信效度分析

目的 编制脑外伤后人格改变评定量表,并制定条目的 评分细则,确定不同程度人格改变的等级划界分,为脑外伤后人格改变的客观评估提供标准化评定工具.方法 根据器质性人格改变的基本概念、诊断标准及临床特征.结合临床实践经验,编制脑外伤后人格改变评定量表及评分细则,对相关被试进行初试、修改及条日筛选后,再用于排除了伪装等(有影响评定结果)的脑外伤后精神伤残鉴定案例.结果 (1)量表总分对无人格改变、轻度人格改变、中度人格改变及重度人格改变划界分分别为≤6分、7～14分、15～21分、≥22分.(2)全量表的Cronnbach's α仅系数为0.876,Guttman分半信度为0.847,重测相关在0.972,评分者相关在0.965以上.(3)与专家诊断比较,对有无人格改变的评定特异性96.9%,灵敏度99.4%,总准确率97.9%.结论 编制的脑外伤后人格改变评定量表符合心理测量学的基本要求,能为脑外伤后有人格改变的伤残鉴定案例提供量化的客观依据.     

《世界卫生组织残疾评定量表》中文版在乳腺癌化疗患者中的信效度检验

 目的为测量《世界卫生组织残疾评定量表》中文版的信度和效度,分析其在中国乳腺癌化疗患者中应用的可行性。方
法对142 例乳腺癌化疗患者进行测评,采用内部一致性信度测量量表信度值,应用探索性因子分析和主成分分析法分析量
表效度。结果总量表内部一致性信度值为0.83,各分量表信度值介于0.69~0.91 之间。主成分分析法提取出8 个因子,2个因
子与原量表保持一致,3 个因子是原量表一个因子的分解,2个因子是原量表1 个因子的分解,还有1 个因子是原量表2 个因子
的组合,所有因子特征根均大于1,累积方差贡献率达73.083%。结论《世界卫生组织残疾评定量表》中文版具有较好的信度,
需要进行进一步研究验证其因子结构。     

中文版老年人风险评定量表评估社区失能老年人功能的信效度

目的探究中文版老年人风险评定量表（EARRS）评估社区失能老年人功能的信效度。方法通过正向翻译、回译、专家小组评议等步骤对EARRS进行汉化和文化调试,得到中文版EARRS,包括躯体功能、心理功能和社会功能等3个维度;以改良Barthel指数作为效标,同时使用2个量表对杭州市382例社区失能老年人进行评估,计算中文版EARRS的重测信度、内部一致性信度、分半信度、内容效度和效标关联效度。结果中文版EARRS及其3个维度重测信度相关系数均＞0.8（P＜0.01）;Cronbach系数均＞0.8,Spearman-brown系数和Guttman分半系数均＞0.7;中文版EARRS各维度得分与总分均呈正相关（r=0.683~0.849,P＜0.01）。中文版EARRS与改良Barthel指数的相关性良好（r=-0.692,P＜0.01）。结论中文版EARRS评估社区失能老年人功能的信效度良好。     

医学生五术素养评定量表编制及信效度检验

目的：编制医学生五术素养评定量表并评价其在医学生中应用的信效度。方法：从安徽医科大学、蚌埠医学院和安徽理工大学医学院随机抽取890位医学生进行问卷调查,利用SPSS26.0与AMOS26.0软件对所得数据进行分析。结果：问卷各条目得分与总分相关系数为0.635～0.815;量表整体的Cronbach’s α系数为0.963,思想道德维度和行为实践维度的Cronbach’s α系数为0.921和0.965,分半信度系数为0.978;条目的内容效度指数(I-CVI)与量表的整体内容效度指数(S-CVI)均良好;对数据进行探索性因子分析,利用主成分分析法提取到两个公因子,累积可解释总方差的71.697%;通过验证性因子分析得到χ²,χ²/df,拟合优度指数(GFI),修正拟合优度指数(AGFI),简效拟合优度指数(PGFI),规范拟合指数(NFI),比较拟合指数(CFI),近似误差均方根(RMSEA)等模型适配度的指标值,上述指标均在可接受范围内。结论：《医学生五术素养评定量表》的信效度较好,可以用于评定基于“五术”视角的我国医学生的思想政治教育情...     

亚健康评定量表的信度效度研究

目的考评亚健康评定量表(SHMS V1.0)的信度、效度。方法选取2000个个体进行亚健康状况现场测试,考评SHMS V1.0的重测信度、内部一致性信度、分半信度、结构效度、内容效度和效标效度。结果 SHMS V1.0的重测信度为0.644(P<0.001);Cronbach’sα系数为0.917;分半信度为0.831。各条目与其所在维度的相关系数较大,而与其他维度的相关系数较小。各维度与其所属子量表的得分也呈现较大的相关性。因子分析的结果与理论结构基本一致。SHMS V1.0与SF-36总分的相关系数为0.664(P<0.001)。结论 SHMS V1.0的信度、效度较好,是可靠的、有效的亚健康测量工具。     

健康体适能评定量表的编制及在老年人群中应用的信效度

目的:编制健康体适能评定量表并探讨该量表应用于老年人群的信效度。方法:通过Delphi法和现场调查法进行量表编制,分析专家的权威系数、Kendall系数以及变异系数等。采用分阶段随机抽样法,在广州市选取410名老年人口进行问卷调查,使用IBM SPSS 20.0和AMOS 22.0分析量表的重测信度、内部一致性信度、分...     

亚健康评定量表评价安徽省城镇居民亚健康状态的信效度研究

目的　分析亚健康评定量表（SHMS V1.0）测评安徽省城镇居民亚健康状态的信度和效度。方法　2016年11月—2017年3月,在安徽省行政区域划分的基础上,采用分层随机抽样法抽取合肥市、铜陵市、阜阳市3个市,并按照性别（1∶1）进行抽样,根据纳入与排除标准,最终选取合肥市400名、铜陵市400名和阜阳市350名共1 150名城镇居民为调查对象。采用自行设计的亚健康状态调查问卷进行调查,其包括城镇居民一般情况调查表和SHMS V1.0两部分。采用内部一致性信度和分半信度考评SHMS V1.0的信度;采用各条目得分与各维度得分的相关系数,各维度得分与各子量表得分的相关系数,各维度的Cronbach's ɑ系数、各维度得分间及其与SHMS V1.0总分的相关系数评价SHMS V1.0的内容效度;运用探索性因子分析和验证性因子分析考评SHMS V1.0的结构效度。结果　本研究共发放调查问卷1 150份,收回有效问卷1 078份,有效回收率为93.74%。SHMS V1.0、生理亚健康子量表（PS）、心理亚健康子量表（MS）、社会亚健康子量表（SS）的Cronbach's ɑ系数分别为0.928、0.847、0.875和0.857,Spearman-Brown系数分别为0.847、0.749、0.809和0.742,Guttman折半信度系数分别为0.847、0.745、0.807和0.731。SHMS V1.0各条目得分与其相应维度得分的相关系数为0.711~0.901（P<0.05）;SHMS V1.0各维度得分与其相应子量表得分的相关系数为0.642~0.906（P<0.05）;SHMS V1.0各维度的Cronbach's ɑ系数均大于该维度与其他维度得分或SHMS V1.0总分的相关系数（P<0.05）。SHMS V1.0的KMO=0.901,Bartlett's球形检验χ2=8 753.858,自由度为595（P<0.001）,表明适合进行因子分析。探索性因子分析共提取8个公因子,其累积方差贡献率达63.319%,且每个条目均在其中1个公因子上有较大负荷值（>0.400）。经验证性因子分析,最终模型拟合效果理想：自由度比值（CMIN/DF）=2.009,规范适配指标（NFI）=0.858,相对适配指数（RFI）=0.835,增值适配指标（IFI）=0.907,非规范适配指标（TLI）=0.891,比较适配指标（CFI）=0.906,近似误差均方根（RMSEA）=0.055。结论　SHMS V1.0具有良好的信度和效度,能够准确、可靠地反映安徽省城镇居民的亚健康状态,这为进一步研究安徽省城镇居民的亚健康状态及其影响因素奠定了理论依据。     

简明自知力评定量表的信度，效度测定

目的 测查简明自知力评定量表的信度和效度。方法 使用简明自知力评定量表对79例精神分裂症患者的自知力进行评定,测查其信度和效度。结果 显示该量表的重测信度为0．83,评定者之间的信度为0．91,分半信度为0．84,与ITAQ及临床自知力评定结果之间的效标效率分别为0．72和0．76,与BPRS的相关系数为－0．31。结论 该量表具有较好的信度和效度。     

蒙哥马利-艾森贝格抑郁量表在重性抑郁障碍患者中应用的信效度和敏感性研究

目的 研究蒙哥马利-艾森贝格抑郁量表(MADRS)在重性抑郁障碍患者中应用的信效度和疗效敏感性.方法 由3位经过培训的精神科主治医师对122例目前重性抑郁障碍(DSM-Ⅳ)患者进行MADRS、Hamilton抑郁量表-17项版本(HAMD)和临床总体印象量表-疾病严重程度分量表(CGI-S)评定;12例患者进行MADRS评定者一致性测试;47例患者在抗抑郁剂治疗第2,4,6,8周时进行上述量表评定;采用相关分析、信度分析和计算效应值(ES)评价MADRS的信效度和疗效敏感性.结果 MADRS评定者间信度为0.954;基线10个项目与总分之间的相关系数在0.445～0.770之间(P＜0.01),平均相关系数为0.629;量表Cronbach α系数为0.847;与HAMD总分和CGI-S分校标关联效度分别为0.853和0.672(均P＜0.01);治疗第2、4、6、8周MADRS重测信度为0.737,0.651,0.543,0.524(均P＜0.01);以MADRS为临床终点指标的ES高于HAMD(第2,4,6和8周分别为0.41,0.40,0.87,0.72,1.14,0.88,1.20,0.96).结论 MADRS在重性抑郁障碍患者中使用具有较好的信度和效度,作为疗效评估指标比HAMD敏感.

Abstract：

Objective To examine the reliability,validity and sensitivity of Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) for patients with current major depression disorder (MDD). Methods One hundred and twenty-two current MDD (DSM-Ⅳ) patients were administered with MADRS, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 item version (HAMD) and Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) at baseline, 12 patients were selected to complete rater agreement test,and 47 patients receiving antidepressant treatment were followed up at 2,4,6 and 8 week and administered with MADRS and HAMD. Correlation analysis, reliability analysis and effect size (ES) calculation were used to determine the reliability,validity and sensitivity to changes during drug treatment. Results Intra rater reliability for MADRS was 0. 954. Baseline item-total score correlations were between 0. 445 and 0. 770 (P ＜ 0. 01 ), and the average correlation was 0. 629. The Cronbach α coefficient was 0. 847. The criterion related validity with HAMD and CGI-S was 0. 853 and 0. 672 (P＜0.01) ,respectively. The re-test reliability for MADRS at 2,4,6 and 8 week was 0. 737 ,0. 651,0. 543 and 0. 524 (P＜0. 01 ) ,respectively.MADRS had higher ES than HAMD when taken as clinical endpoint outcome measurement (0.41 vs 0.40,0.87 vs 0. 72,1.14 vs 0. 88,1.20 vs 0. 96 for 2nd,4th,6th and 8th week, respectively). Conclusion MADRS has good reliability and validity for patients with MDD. It is more sensitive to assess drug effect than HAMD.     

中文版精神分裂症认知功能评定量表信度与效度研究

目的 对精神分裂症认知功能评测量表(Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale,SCoRS)中文版的信度和效度进行研究.方法 对112例精神分裂症患者作SCoRS、精神分裂症认知功能简明成套测评量表(BACS)、个人和社会功能量表(PSP)评测.使用主成分分析法、信度分析法及相关分析对所得数据进行统计分析.结果 信度分析显示,Cronbach α=0.963,条目经标准化后Cronbach α=0.964,HotellingT2=248.948,F=10.767,P=0.000,去掉任意一条对信度系数的影响均小于0.01.主成分分析:KMO统计量为0.864.因子分析显示:因子1包括条目1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,反映神经认知功能状态;因子2包括条目10,17,18,19,20,反映社会认知功能状态;因子3包括条目2,12,13,14,15,16,主要反映日常生活功能状态.SCoRS自评分、知情者评分、评定者评分总分与PSP总分及其社会中有益的活动、个人和社会关系、自我照料等因子分均呈中度相关.SCoRS因子分中,除自评分因子3与PSP总分无显著相关性外,余各项之间均存中度显著相关性.SCoRS各评分与扰乱及攻击行为之间不具有显著相关性.SCoRS自评分、知情者评分、评定者评分总分与PSP总分及因子分与BACS复合分及各分测验分之间均呈显著相关性.结论 SCoRS(中文版)是一种良好的认知功能评测工具,适用于汉语地区精神分裂症患者认知功能损害评测.

Abstract：

Objective To investigate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the schizophrenia cognition rating scale ( SCoRS) . Methods 112 cases of schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder inpatients were recruited and assessed using the SCoRS( Chinese version) ,the brief assessment of cognition in schizophrenia (BACS) and personal and social performance scale(PSP). The principle component analysis,reliability analysis and correlation analysis were used to analyze the data. Results Standardized Cronbach α = 0.964. All the 20 i-tems were significantly correlated. Except item 1 ,9,18,19 ( r=0. 830,0. 890,0. 871,0. 890) ,the interrater correlation coefficiency (ICC) of the rest of the items was over 0.9. The ICC of global rating scores between two raters was 0. 921. Factor analysis procedure identified three factors. Factor 1 reflected the neurocognitive state; factor 2 reflected the social cognitive state;and factor 3 mainly reflected the daily life function. The SCoRS rating scores were significantly correlated with the BACS and PSP scores. Conclusion The validity and reliability of SCoRS are acceptable. SCoRS is a useful tool for assessing the deficits of the cognitive function for Chinese schizophrenia patients.     

解离特质量表编制及信效度分析

目的 编制解离特质量表并检验其信效度.方法 根据文献和心理测量学原理编制解离特质量表,对1306名大学生进行测试,并测试症状自评量表(SCL-90)作为效标.结果 ①探索性因子分析得到8个因子,分别为出神、现实解体、躯体化、人格解体、自我调节、情感麻木、疏忽遗忘、时空混乱,可解释总方差的57.69%.②总量表和8个因子分量表的Cronbach'α系数分别为0.969,0.889,0.907,0.874,0.890,0.892,0.872,0.855,0.830,重测信度分别为0.763,0.585,0.677,0.613,0.651,0.684,0.621,0.575,0.638(P＜0.01).③解离特质量表总分和各因子分数分别与SCL-90总分和各因子分数呈正相关(r=0.200～0.714,P＜0.01).结论 解离特质量表在大学生中具有良好的信效度,可作为评估解离特质水平的测量工具.

Abstract：

Objective To develop the Dissociative Trait Scale(DTS),and examine its reliability and validity. Methods Based on literature and research work,a preliminary questionnaire was designed to measure dissociative trait. 1306 college students completed the DTS and Symptom Checklist 90(SCL-90). Results Exploratory factor analysis extracted eight factors. The percentage of variance explained was 57.69％. The Cronbach α-coefficient of the total scale and the eight subscales ranged from 0. 830 ～ 0. 969, the test-retest reliability ranged from 0.575 ～ 763 (P ＜ 0.01 ). The scores of DTS significantly positively correlated with the scores of SCL-90 (P ＜0.01 ). Conclusion The DTS has acceptable psychometric quality,and can be applied to assess dissociative traits in Chinese college students.     

症状自评量表在外迁移民中的信效度检验

目的 研究中文版症状自评量表(SCL-90)量表应用于重庆市三峡库区外迁移民的信度和效度.方法 采用整群随机抽样方法,用SCL-90量表对符合条件的外迁移民进行面对面调查,并计算量表得分.采用信度分析,验证性因素分析和Pearson相关分析等方法对量表进行信度和效度评价.结果 ①10个分量表的Cronbach's α系数在0.763～0.891之间,折半系数在0.771～0.869之间;②各分量表分与总量表分的相关系数在0.754～0.921之间,且对10个相关系数的检验均有统计学意义(P＜0.01);③验证性因素分析发现,一阶和二阶模型中x2/d f＞5,RMSEA≤0.08,IFI、CFI、NNFI等相对拟合指数＞0.90,SRMR＜0.1;④10个分量表之间的相关系数在0.462～0.895之间,除强迫症状、焦虑和精神性症状3个分量表外,其余分量表与总量表的相关均超过分量表间的相关;⑤心理问题阳性症状组10个因子的得分均高于心理健康组,且2组t值的差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论 SCL-90应用于外迁移民的内部一致性信度、内容效度和区分效度较好,但结构效度并不理想.     

核心自我评价量表在企业员工和大学生中的信效度研究

目的 在企业员工和大学生中修订核心自我评价量表(Core Self-Evaluation Scale,CSES),考察其信度和效度.方法 对原量表进行翻译和回译;对400名企业员工和272名大学生2个样本进行测试,检验中文版核心自我评价量表的信度与效度.结果 量表在企业员工和大学生2个群体中,内在一致性信度分别为0.71和0.81,重测信度分别为0.81和0.84;验证性因素分析显示在两群体中单因素模型均拟合较好,且在两个群体中都具有良好的会聚效度和增益效度.结论 表明核心自我评价量表在企业员工和大学生两个群体中具有较好的信、效度,可以在实际研究中作为测量核心自我评价概念的工具.

Abstract：

Objective To revise Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSES) and examine its reliability and validity in employees and undergraduates in China. Methods The adaptation of the scale was gotten by way of translation and back-translation. 400 employees and 272 undergraduates were tested by questionnaires, and their data were used to evaluate reliability and validity of the scale. Results In employees and undergraduates, the Cronbach' s coefficient of the CSES was respectively 0.71,0.81, and the test-retest reliability was respectively 0.81,0.84. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the single factor model was more fit for the revised CSES. The scale had good convergent validity and incremental validity in the samples. Conclusion The CSES has good reliability and validity in employees and undergraduates, which can be used for measuring the core self-evaluation in practical research.