CAJ | 학술논문

为了开发并规范糖尿病患者运动阻碍的调查工具，弄清中国2型糖尿病患者的主要运动阻碍，运用国际上最新的教育/心理测量技术简化调查工具，更好地应用大规模人群。对197名2型糖尿病患者(男性104名，女性93名，平均年龄53.6岁)进行问卷调查。调查工具源自美国成熟的43项运动阻碍调查问卷，作为判定妨碍他们参加运动的程度。数据应用Rasch模型进行分析，通过其Logits值，判定运动阻碍的大小；然后根据Rasch模型的分析结果，在保持原来内容结构基础上，缩减问卷内容，通过相关性分析，筛选出最佳缩减的问卷版本。结果发现：缺乏运动的知识和专业人员的指导是我国2型糖尿病患者最主要的运动阻碍。运用新型试题应答理论模型(IRT)分析发现，4种缩减版本的问卷均与原来43项的版本具有相关性，16项的问卷工具效率最高，可推荐使用。
위료개발병규범당뇨병환자운동조애적조사공구，롱청중국2형당뇨병환자적주요운동조애，운용국제상최신적교육/심리측량기술간화조사공구，경호지응용대규모인군。대197명2형당뇨병환자(남성104명，녀성93명，평균년령53.6세)진행문권조사。조사공구원자미국성숙적43항운동조애조사문권，작위판정방애타문삼가운동적정도。수거응용Rasch모형진행분석，통과기Logits치，판정운동조애적대소；연후근거Rasch모형적분석결과，재보지원래내용결구기출상，축감문권내용，통과상관성분석，사선출최가축감적문권판본。결과발현：결핍운동적지식화전업인원적지도시아국2형당뇨병환자최주요적운동조애。운용신형시제응답이론모형(IRT)분석발현，4충축감판본적문권균여원래43항적판본구유상관성，16항적문권공구효솔최고，가추천사용。
In order to develop and standardize a diabetic patient sports hindrance survey tool, and to clarify major sports hindrances suffered by type 2 diabetic patients in China, the authors applied the world latest educational/psychological measurement technology to simplify the survey tool, so that it can be applied to mass groups of people better. The authors carried out a questionnaire survey on 197 type 2 diabetic patients (104 males, 93 females, average age:53.6). The survey tool originated from a mature sports hindrance survey questionnaire established in the United States, including 43 sports hindrances, used to determine the degree of hindrance in their sports participation. The authors analyzed the data by apply-ing the Rasch model, determined the magnitudes of sports hindrances based on their Logits values, and then analyzed the results according to the Rasch model, reduced questionnaire contents on the basis of maintaining the original content structure, screened out the best reduced questionnaire version by means of correlation analysis, and found that the lack of sports knowledge and the lack of professional guidance were major sports hindrances for type 2 diabetic patients in China. Based on their analysis by applying the new item response theory (IRT) model, the authors found that all the 4 reduced versions of questionnaires were correlative to the original 43-hindrance version, and that the 16-hindrance questionnaire tool had the highest efficiency, whose usage was recommended.