社区失智症筛查感知问卷的汉化及信效度分析

发布时间：2019-06-29 13:14

【摘要】：目的翻译社区失智症筛查感知(PRISM-PC)问卷,并对其进行信度、效度检测,以期引进中文版PRISM-PC问卷,为我国制定失智症筛查态度的评估工具提供基础。方法通过Brislin法翻译,经文化调适、语义分析后形成中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版)。2015年1—6月,采用便利抽样法选取郑州市颍河路社区、文化宫路社区、工人路社区、日报社区符合纳入标准的老年人225例为调查对象。采用一般资料调查问卷、中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版)对其进行调查。共发放问卷225份,回收有效问卷215份,有效回收率为95.6%。采用随机数字表法从215例被调查者中选取30例,间隔2周后采用中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版)对其进行再次调查。采用极端组法和相关性分析进行项目分析;采用专家评价法进行内容效度分析;采用KMO检验、Bartlett's球形检验、探索性因子分析进行结构效度分析;采用内部一致性信度、重测信度进行信度分析。结果采用极端组法将被调查者分为高分组(60例)和低分组(59例);低分组中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版)条目1~条目20、条目22、条目25、条目28~条目34得分均低于高分组(P0.05);低分组与高分组中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版)条目21、条目24、条目26得分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版)各条目得分与其总分均呈正相关(P0.05);但中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版)条目21、条目24、条目26得分与中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版)总分的相关系数均0.4,予以删除,形成中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版1)。中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版1)各条目的内容效度指数(CVI)为0.83~1.00。中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版1)的KMO值为0.742,Bartlett's球形检验χ~2=3 230.012,df=406,P0.001,说明适合进行探索性因子分析。通过主成分分析和最大方差正交旋转法,根据因子提取原则,共提取5个公因子,累积方差贡献率为72.213%,各条目载荷值为0.578~0.931。中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版1)的内部一致性信度Cronbach'sα系数为0.876,各维度的Cronbach'sα系数为0.724~0.944。中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版1)的重测信度为0.739。调整中文版PRISM-PC问卷(初始版1)的条目名称,形成中文版PRISM-PC问卷(最终版),包括5个维度、29个条目,分别为失智症筛查的接受度(6个条目)、失智症筛查的益处(8个条目)、失智症筛查的羞耻感(7个条目)、失智症筛查对独立性的消极影响(4个条目)、失智症筛查带来的痛苦(4个条目)。结论中文版PRISM-PC问卷具有良好的信效度,适用于我国社区老年人对失智症筛查态度的测评。
[Abstract]:Objective to translate the community dementia screening perception (PRISM-PC) questionnaire and test its reliability and validity in order to introduce the Chinese version of PRISM-PC questionnaire in order to provide a basis for the evaluation of dementia screening attitude in China. Methods the Chinese version of PRISM-PC questionnaire (initial version) was formed through Brislin translation, cultural adjustment and semantic analysis. From January to June 2015, 225 elderly people who met the inclusion criteria in Yinghe Road Community, Cultural Palace Road Community, Workers Road Community and Daily Community of Zhengzhou City were selected as the subjects. The general data questionnaire was used, and the Chinese version of PRISM-PC questionnaire (initial version) was used to investigate it. A total of 225 questionnaires were sent out, 215 valid questionnaires were recovered, and the effective recovery rate was 95.6%. 30 of 215 respondents were selected by random digital table method. After 2 weeks, the Chinese version of PRISM-PC questionnaire (initial version) was used to investigate them again. Extreme group method and correlation analysis were used for project analysis; expert evaluation method was used for content validity analysis; KMO test, Bartlett's spherical test and exploratory factor analysis were used for structural validity analysis; internal consistency reliability and retest reliability were used for reliability analysis. Results the respondents were divided into high score group (60 cases) and low score group (59 cases) by extreme group method, and the scores of items 1 ~ 20, 22, 25 and 28 ~ item 34 of PRISM-PC questionnaire in Chinese version of low score group were lower than those of high score group (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the scores of items 21, 24 and 26 of PRISM-PC questionnaire (initial version) between low score group and high score group (P 0.05). The scores of each item of the Chinese version of PRISM-PC questionnaire (initial version) were positively correlated with its total score (P 0.05), but the Chinese version of PRISM-PC questionnaire (initial version) items 21, 24, 26 scores and the Chinese version of PRISM-PC questionnaire (initial version) total score of the correlation coefficient of 0.4, deleted, forming the Chinese version of PRISM-PC questionnaire (initial version 1). The content validity index (CVI) of each item of Chinese version PRISM-PC questionnaire (initial version 1) was 0.83 鈮，

本文编号：2507844