CAJ | 학술논문

目的制定亚健康状态评价的主观指标体系并考察其信度和效度,为亚健康状态的判定提供有效的测量工具.方法以"不适和能力减退"为基本特点,根据慢性应激对人体主要系统的影响,初步制定亚健康状态的评价指标,并经临床专家讨论和预调查分析,调整问卷条目获得正式调查问卷.将调查问卷在首都医科大学宣武医院3000名集体单位体检者中测试,采用Chronbach's α系数、条目一维度相关系数(IIC)和重测相关系数(ICC)评价问卷的信度,采用因子分析和单因素方差分析分别考察问卷的结构效度和区分效度.结果经过测试最终形成包括5个维度、25个条目的亚健康状态评价问卷,调查共收回有效问卷2799份.问卷的总体Chronbach's α系数为0.92,疲劳症状、心血管症状、胃肠道症状和精神症状4个维度的α系数均在0.7以上;问卷的条目一维度相关系数在0.51～0.72之间,各条目的重测相关系数在0.89～0.98之间.经因子分析,获得特征根1的公因子共5个,对总体方差的累计贡献率为62.35%,5个公因子与问卷的5个维度相符合;不同职业和年龄组人群的亚健康问卷得分差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论亚健康状态评价问卷有较好的信度和效度,可用于亚健康状态的初步评估及筛选.
목적 제정아건강상태평개적주관지표체계병고찰기신도화효도,위아건강상태적판정제공유효적측량공구.방법 이"불괄화능력감퇴"위기본특점,근거만성응격대인체주요계통적영향,초보제정아건강상태적평개지표,병경림상전가토론화예조사분석,조정문권조목획득정식조사문권.장조사문권재수도의과대학선무의원3000명집체단위체검자중측시,채용Chronbach's α계수、조목일유도상관계수(IIC)화중측상관계수(ICC)평개문권적신도,채용인자분석화단인소방차분석분별고찰문권적결구효도화구분효도.결과 경과측시최종형성포괄5개유도、25개조목적 아건강상태평개문권,조사공수회유효문권2799빈.문권적총체Chronbach's α계수위0.92,피로증상、심혈관증상、위장도증상화정신증상4개유도적α계수균재0.7이상;문권적조목일유도상관계수재0.51～0.72지간,각조목적 중측상관계수재0.89～0.98지간.경인자분석,획득특정근1적공인자공5개,대총체방차적루계공헌솔위62.35%,5개공인자여문권적5개유도상부합;불동직업화년령조인군적아건강문권득분차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).결론 아건강상태평개문권유교호적신도화효도,가용우아건강상태적초보평고급사선.
Objective To establish a subjective indicator system for the evaluation of sub-health status and study on its reliability and validity. Methods Based on the basic features of general malice and losing ability of workforce, the indicator system for sub-health status evaluation was developed according to the chronic stress on human body' s main systems. The items were adjusted according to the experience from experts and the results of the pilot study. Indices as Chronbach' s a, IIC and ICC were used to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire. Factor analysis and ANOVA were used to evaluate the construct validity and discriminative ability of the questionnaire. Results The formal sub-health survey questionnaire would include five domains and 25 questions in total. The whole questionnaire' s Chronbach's α coefficient was 0.92. Cronbach's α of the four domains, including cardiovascular, digestive tract, immunity and mental health were no less than 0.7 while IIC ranging from 0.51 to 0.72 and ICC ranging from 0.89 to 0.98. The five extracted common factors which contributed 62.35% to the total variation were basically consistent with the five dimensions. ANOVA showed significant differences among different groups (P<0.05). Conclusion The questionnaire appeared reliable and valid for measurement of sub-health status.