帮助 关于我们

返回检索结果

中文版多元心理健康素养量表在男性军人中信效度评价
Reliability and validity of multicomponent mental health literacy measure- Chinese version in male military personnel

查看参考文献23篇

明志君 1,2   陈祉妍 1 *   王雅芯 1   江兰 1   郭菲 1  
文摘 目的评价中文版多元心理健康素养量表在中国男性军人中的信度和效度,为该量表在中国的推广使用提供参考依据。方法于2018年11 - 12月采用整群随机抽样方法抽取驻地在北京、天津、河北和山东的1 106名男性军人进行中文版多元心理健康素养量表测试,间隔6周后选取其中237人对量表进行重测;采用项目分析、内部一致性信度、重测信度、结构效度、聚敛效度和区分效度进行量表的信度和效度评价。结果中文版多元心理健康素养量表在原量表基础上修订了2个条目,并删除了同质性较差的2个条目和载荷绝对值较小的2个条目后共包括22个条目;项目分析结果显示,中文版多元心理健康素养量表的22个条目得分与量表总分的相关系数为0.20~0.48(均P < 0.01),量表具有较好的项目同质性;量表总体Cronbach's α系数和重测信度分别为0.80和0.64,知识、信念和资源3个维度的Cronbach's α系数分别为0.76、0.71和0.77,量表具有较好的信度;探索性因子分析结果显示,中文版多元心理健康素养量表3个公因子的累计方差贡献率为38.59 %,各条目所属因子结构与原量表基本一致;验证性因素分析结果显示,中文版多元心理健康素养量表的拟合优度指数(GFI)为0.91、残差均方根(RMR)为0.01、平均概似平方误根系数(RMSEA)为0.06、调整拟合优度指数(AGFI)为0.90,模型拟合较好;重测样本的心理健康素养总分、知识维度得分、信念维度得分、资源维度得分和心理健康知识问卷总分分别为(13.00 ± 4.05) 、 (5.45 ± 2.49)、(4.76 ± 2.07)、(2.78 ± 1.29)和(14.82 ± 2.50)分,心理健康素养总分及各维度得分与心理健康知识问卷总分均呈正相关(均P < 0.01);初测样本的心理健康素养总分、知识维度得分、信念维度得分、资源维度得分、抑郁量表得分和焦虑量表得分分别为(11.47 ± 4.35)、(5.09 ± 2.52)、(3.95 ± 2.08)、(2.43 ± 1.43)、(3.21 ± 3.82)和(2.65 ± 2.99)分,心理健康素养总分及信念和资源维度得分与抑郁和焦虑得分均呈负相关(均P < 0.01),知识维度得分与抑郁和焦虑得分均不相关(均P > 0.05);量表的聚敛效度和区分效度均较好。结论中文版多元心理健康素养量表具有较好的信度和效度,可作为中国军人的心理健康素养评估工具。
其他语种文摘 Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the multicomponent mental health literacy measure- Chinese version in male military personnel and to provide evidences for the application of the measure in China. Methods Using random cluster sampling, we recruited 1 175 military personnel in two cities (Beijing and Tianjin) and two provinces (Hebei and Shandong) province for a mobile phone-based self-administered survey and a resurvey in 237 persons selected from 1 106 valid respondents six weeks after the initial survey during November - December 2018. The modified multicomponent mental health literacy measure-Chinese version was adopted in the study and the reliability and validity of the instrument were assessed with item analysis, internal consistency coefficient, test-retest reliability, construct validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity. Results Two items in the original measure were revised and 4 items were deleted (2 due to poor homogeneity and 2 due to small absolute value of load) and the final measure included totally 22 items. Project analysis resulted in the correlation coefficients between the scores of each items and the total score of the measure ranging from 0.20 to 0.48 (all P < 0.01), indicating a good item homogeneity of the measure. The overall Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability of the measure was 0.80 and 0.64; and the Cronbach's α of the measure's three domains of knowledge, belief and resources was 0.76, 0.71 and 0.77, respectively, indicating a good reliability. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the cumulative variance contribution rate was 38.59% for the three domains of the measure and the item factor structure was consistent with that of the original measure. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fitness of the constructed model, with the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of 0.91, root mean square residual (RMR) of 0.01, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) of 0.06, and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) of 0.90. For the respondents of the test-retest survey, the average scores of mental health literacy, knowledge, belief, and resources domain, and mental health knowledge questionnaire were 13.00 ± 4.05, 5.45 ± 2.49, 4.76 ± 2.07, 2.78 ± 1.29, and 14.82 ± 2.50, respectively; the overall score and scores of each domain of the mental health literacy were significantly correlated positively with mental health knowledge questionnaire score (P < 0.01 for all). For the respondents of the initial survey, the average scores of mental health literacy, knowledge, belief, and resources domain, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale was 11.47 ± 4.35, 5.09 ± 2.52, 3.95 ± 2.08, 2.43 ± 1.43, 3.21 ± 3.82, and 2.65 ± 2.99, respectively; the overall score of mental health literacy and the scores of belief and resources domains were significantly correlated inversely with depression and anxiety scores (all P < 0.01), but the knowledge domain score was not correlated with depression and anxiety scores (all P > 0.05). The results indicated good convergent validity and discriminant validity of the measure. Conclusion The modified multicomponent mental health literacy measure-Chinese version is of good reliability and validity when administered in male military personnel and could be used as an evaluation instrument of mental health literacy for Chinese military personnel.
来源 中国公共卫生 ,2021,37(1):86-91 【核心库】
DOI 10.11847/zgggws1123418
关键词 中文版多元心理健康素养量表 ; 军人 ; 男性 ; 信度 ; 效度
地址

1. 中国科学院心理研究所, 中国科学院心理健康重点实验室, 北京, 100101  

2. 中国科学院大学心理学系

语种 中文
文献类型 研究性论文
ISSN 1001-0580
学科 社会科学总论
文献收藏号 CSCD:6899005

参考文献 共 23 共2页

1.  王丽. 我国成年居民心理健康状况及影响因素分析. 中国公共卫生,2019,35(5):579-582 被引 9 次    
2.  陈祉妍. 国民心理健康素养调查. 中国国民心理健康发展报告(2017-2018),2019 被引 2 次    
3.  Jorm A F. Mental health literacy: public knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry,2018,177(5):396-401 被引 1 次    
4.  魏敏. 《加强心理健康服务指导意见》印发. 中医药管理杂志,2017,25(3):12 被引 2 次    
5.  Jorm A F. "Mental health literacy": a survey of the public's ability to recognise mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment. Medical Journal of Australia,1997,166(4):182-186 被引 29 次    
6.  Jorm A F. Mental health literacy: empowering the community to take action for better mental health. American Psychologist,2012,67(3):231-243 被引 17 次    
7.  Wong D F K. Comparing the mental health literacy of Chinese people in Australia, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: implications for mental health promotion. Psychiatry Research,2017,256:258-266 被引 3 次    
8.  马晓欣. 国外心理健康素养测量方法研究进展. 护理研究,2019,33(7):1186-1189 被引 2 次    
9.  Wei Y. Mental health literacy measures evaluating knowledge, attitudes and help-seeking: a scoping review. BMC Psychiatry,2015,15:291 被引 4 次    
10.  Jung H. Expanding a measure of mental health literacy: development and validation of a multicomponent mental health literacy measure. Psychiatry Research,2016,243:278-286 被引 6 次    
11.  卫生部办公厅. 卫生部办公厅关于印发精神卫生工作指标调查评估方案的通知,2010 被引 2 次    
12.  董玲. 武汉市居民精神卫生知识知晓率调查. 中国公共卫生,2019,35(3):345-348 被引 4 次    
13.  何津. 流调中心抑郁量表中文简版的编制. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志,2013,22(12):1133-1136 被引 26 次    
14.  Spitzer R L. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine,2006,166(10):1092-1097 被引 201 次    
15.  吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务-SPSS操作与应用,2010 被引 44 次    
16.  荣泰生. Amos与研究方法(第2版),2010 被引 2 次    
17.  杨宗升. 中学生心理健康素养、心理健康水平的现状及关系研究. 硕士学位论文,2015 被引 1 次    
18.  Brijnath B. Do web-based mental health literacy interventions improve the mental health literacy of adult consumers? Results from a systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research,2016,18(6):e165 被引 7 次    
19.  Swami V. Examining mental health literacy and its correlates using the overclaiming technique. British Journal of Psychology,2011,102(3):662-675 被引 4 次    
20.  Bjornsen H N. Positive mental health literacy: development and validation of a measure among Norwegian adolescents. BMC Public Health,2017,17(1):717-726 被引 4 次    
引证文献 5 篇

1 李鑫 养老机构2型糖尿病患者心理健康素养现状及影响因素研究 中华护理教育,2022,19(10):923-926
被引 0 次

2 李鑫静 脑卒中患者照顾者心理健康素养潜在类别分析 军事护理,2023,40(4):48-51
被引 0 次

显示所有5篇文献

论文科学数据集
PlumX Metrics
相关文献

 作者相关
 关键词相关
 参考文献相关

版权所有 ©2008 中国科学院文献情报中心 制作维护：中国科学院文献情报中心
地址：北京中关村北四环西路33号 邮政编码：100190 联系电话：(010)82627496 E-mail:cscd@mail.las.ac.cn 京ICP备05002861号-4 | 京公网安备11010802043238号