医科大学贫困生的心理应付方式特点

Characteristics of psychological coping in poverty undergraduates of medical university

目的:了解贫困大学生的心理应付方式特点,为解决贫困生的心理问题提供依据。方法:2005-06采用分层随机整群抽样方法,对广州市某综合性大学医学部1～3年级大学生1070人进行问卷调查。以家庭人均月收入不足300元为标准,筛检界定贫困生。采用国内修订版应付方式问卷,共有62个条目,分为解决问题、自责、求助、幻想、退避和合理化6个分量表,每个分量表由若干个条目组成,每个条目只有“是”和“否”两个答案。调查人员经培训,严格掌握测评方法和标准后,按统一规范的指导语实施测评,以班级为单位进行了团体测评,并当场回收问卷。对贫困生与非贫困生的测评结果进行比较分析。结果:共发放问卷1070份,回收有效问卷986份。结果入组贫困生为254名,非贫困大学生732名。①贫困生的解决问题、求助、幻想和合理化得分均低于非贫困生(P<0.05),自责和退避得分的比较无差异。②女性贫困生的自责和退避得分高于男性贫困生(P<0.05),解决问题、求助、幻想和合理化得分比较无差异。③不同年级贫困生的合理化得分大一低于大二和大三(P<0.05),大二和大三无差异。解决问题、自责、求助和幻想得分没有差异;3个年级男贫困生的的退避得分大一低于大三(P<0.05),合理化得分大一低于大二和大三(P<0.05);3个年级女贫困生的幻想得分大一和大三低于大二(P<0.05)。④农村贫困生的解决问题和幻想得分高于城市贫困生(P<0.05);3个年级城市贫困生的自责得分大一低于大二,幻想得分大一低于大二和大三,退避得分大一低于大三(P均<0.05)。结论:贫困生比非贫困生倾向于不成熟型应付方式,其中女生比男生更显不成熟,年级间无明显差异,农村贫困生比城市贫困生更倾向于成熟型应付方式。

AIM： To understand the characteristics of psychological coping in poverty undergraduates, and provide basis for solution of psychological problems. METHODS： 1070 undergraduates from freshmen to juniors were selected by randomized cluster sampling method from the Medical Department of a comprehensive university in Guangzhou at Juhe 2005, who were interviewed with questionnaires. Take the students with family average income of less than ￥300 were taken as the poverty undergraduates. The revised domestic coping style questionnaire was adopted, including 62 items in 6 tables of solving problems, self-accusation, asking for aid, fantasy , flinch and rationalization. Each table was composed of some items with two answers ＂YES＂ and ＂NO＂ under each item. Subjects were eyaluated in group （each class was taken as a group） according to unified standard instructions by inquirers, who were strictly trained and mastered the testing methods as well as the standard well. And the questionnaires were collected on the spot. The testing results was compared and analyzed between poverty and non-poverty students. RESULTS： 1 070 questionnaires were sent out and 986 questionnaires were called back. 254 poverty subjects and 732 non-poverty students were involved in the analysis of results.①The scores of solving problems, asking for aid, fantasy and rationalization were lower in poverties than those of non-poverties （P 〈 0.05）, and there were no differences in scores of self-accusation and flinch between the two groups. ②The scores of female poverties in self-accusation and flinch were higher than those of males （P 〈 0.05）, while there were no differences in scores of solving problems, asking for aid, fantasy and rationalization.③The score of freshmen in rationalization was lower than that of sophomores and juniors （P 〈 0.05）, while there were no differences between sophomores and juniors, whereas there were no differences in scores of solving problems, self-accusation and fantasy. The score of freshmen in rationalization was lower than sophomore and juniors （P 〈 0.05）, and the score of freshmen in fantasy was lower females than sophomore and juniors.④The scores of rural poverties in solving problems and fantasy were higher than those of urbaa poverties （P 〈 0.05）. The scores of urban poverties in self-accusation was lower in freshmen than in sophomores, and the score of fantasy was lower in freshmen than sophomore and juniors, and the score of flinch in freshmen was lower than in juniors （P 〈 0.05）. CONCLUSION： The poverty undergraduates tend to cope with incidents in immature style in comparison with non-poverty, and females are much more immature than males. There is no obvious differences among three grades. Rural poverties are more mature than urban poverties.