论文部分内容阅读
背景:SF-36量表有良好的信度和效度,适于在欧美人群中进行生活质量评价。目的:探讨健康调查量表SF-36在农村老年人群中应用的信度、效度和可行性。设计:本研究为现况研究,研究对象由两阶段随机抽样得到。单位:中国协和医科大学流行病与卫生统计研究所和一所大学的流行病与卫生统计研究所。对象:本研究于2002-05/2002-07在深圳市宝安区随机抽取6个村,选取6个村内687名老年人作为调查对象。纳入标准:年龄≥60岁、有常住户口者;排除标准:患严重精神及听力障碍者。实际获得有效问卷666份,其中男264名,女402名。方法:由经过培训的访问员用SF-36生活质量测量量表对农村老年人进行面对面访问调查,用可行性、信度和效度来评估SF-36量表。主要观察指标:SF-36量表的分半信度、内部一致性、效标关联效度、构想效度和结构效度。结果:该量表具有良好的内部一致性,8个维度的Cronbach’a系数均≥0.8,除心理健康外,各维度的分半信度较好,Pearson相关系数均≥0.7。构想效度和效标关联效度令人满意。因子分析产生两个因子,能解释总方差的63.14%,且除精神影响外,其它各维度在相应因子有较满意的因子载荷量(≥0.4)。结论:SF-36量表基本适用于农村老年人生活质量评价,但部分条目需进行调整。脆弱的老年人群应该给予更多的关怀?
Background: The SF-36 scale has good reliability and validity and is suitable for quality of life assessment in European and American populations. Objective: To investigate the reliability, validity and feasibility of the application of the Health Survey Scale SF-36 in rural elderly population. Design: This study is a study of the status quo and the subjects are obtained from two-stage random sampling. Unit: Institute of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Concord Medical University of China and Institute of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, University. Subject: This study randomly selected 6 villages in Bao’an District of Shenzhen City from 2002-05 to 2002-07, and selected 687 elderly people from 6 villages as the survey subjects. Inclusion criteria: Age ≥ 60 years old, with permanent residence; Exclusion criteria: Severe mental and hearing impaired. 666 valid questionnaires were actually obtained, including 264 males and 402 females. METHODS: The trained interviewers used the SF-36 Quality of Life Measurement Scale to conduct face-to-face interviews with rural seniors and assessed the SF-36 scale with feasibility, reliability, and validity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Split-half reliability, internal consistency, validity-related validity, construct validity, and construct validity of the SF-36 scale. RESULTS: The scale had good internal consistency. The Cronbach’a coefficients of all eight dimensions were all ≥ 0.8. Except for mental health, the split-half reliability of each dimension was good, and the Pearson correlation coefficient was ≥ 0.7. The validity of the validity of the construct validity and the criterion is satisfactory. Factor analysis produces two factors, which can explain 63.14% of the total variance, and in addition to the mental impact, other dimensions have relatively satisfactory factor loading (≥0.4) in the corresponding factors. Conclusion: The SF-36 scale is basically applicable to the evaluation of the quality of life of the rural elderly, but some items need to be adjusted. Should the frail elderly population give more care?