CAJ | 학술논문

目的评价中文版SF-36量表在老年人群健康生命质量评价中的信度和效度.方法 2007年10-12月统一受训的调查员使用含中文版SF-36量表的问卷对浙江省城乡4241名60周岁以上的老年人面对面询问式调查,采用相关分析、信度分析、因子分析、t检验和方差分析等统计学方法评价量表的信度和效度.结果中文版SF-36量表具有较好的分半信度(r=0.91,P<0.001),内部一致性信度α系数除生命活力(α=0.65)、社交功能(α=0.65)、心理健康(α=0.40)维度外,其余维度的α系数均>0.8.每个条目跟相关维度的相关系数均>0.4(条目9-2除外),且高于该条目与其他维度的相关系数(条目9-8除外),说明中文版SF-36量表有良好的集合效度和区分效度.35个条目在提取的6个公因子中的分布与量表的理论结构假设基本一致,累计贡献达67.04%.除心理健康维度外,各维度具有良好的判别效度.结论中文版SF-36量表有较好的信度和效度,适用于老年人群健康生命质量评价,但量表心理健康维度的信度与效度较低,且其中的9-2、9-8以及躯体功能维度中的3-1条目不适合于中国老年人群.
목적 평개중문판SF-36량표재노년인군건강생명질량평개중적신도화효도.방법 2007년10-12월통일수훈적조사원사용함중문판SF-36량표적문권대절강성성향4241명60주세이상적노년인면대면순문식조사,채용상관분석、신도분석、인자분석、t검험화방차분석등통계학방법 평개량표적신도화효도.결과 중문판SF-36량표구유교호적분반신도(r=0.91,P<0.001),내부일치성신도α계수제생명활력(α=0.65)、사교공능(α=0.65)、심리건강(α=0.40)유도외,기여유도적α계수균>0.8.매개조목근상관유도적상관계수균>0.4(조목9-2제외),차고우해조목여기타유도적상관계수(조목9-8제외),설명중문판SF-36량표유량호적집합효도화구분효도.35개조목재제취적6개공인자중적분포여량표적이론결구가설기본일치,루계공헌체67.04%.제심리건강유도외,각유도구유량호적판별효도.결론 중문판SF-36량표유교호적신도화효도,괄용우노년인군건강생명질량평개,단량표심리건강유도적신도여효도교저,차기중적9-2、9-8이급구체공능유도중적3-1조목불괄합우중국노년인군.
Objective To evaluate the validity and reliability of a Chinese version on the Short-Form Health Survey Scale (SF-36) among elderly population. Methods Questionnaire including SF-36 Chinese version was administered in a cross-sectional study from October to December 2007. 4241 elderly people over 60 years old from rural and urban area in Zhejiang province were face-to-face interviewed by welltrained investigators, and then analyses on correlation, reliability, factors, t-test and one-way ANOVA were made to evaluate on reliability and validity of the scale. Results The SF-36 Chinese version had good split-half reliability (r=0.91, P<0.001 ) and all the internal consistency Cronbach's alpha coefficients exceeded 0.8 except for VT (α=0.65), SF(α=0.65) and MH (α=0.40). The correlative coefficients between each item and its domain were all greater than the 0.4 thresholds except item 9-2, and they were greater than the correlation between the item and other domains for all but item 9-8. These results demonstrated that the SF-36 Chinese version had good convergent validity and discriminant validity. The distribution of 35 items in 6 public factors (the cumulative variance=67.04 %) extracted from them was consistent with the basic conceived concept. All domains except MH had good validity to discriminate different categories. Conclusion The SF-36 Chinese version had good reliability and validity. It was acceptable for the evaluation on quality of life in elderly population, but the reliability and validity of MH were relative low and the items such as 9-2, 9-8 in MH and 3-1 in PF were not suitable for Chinese elderly population.