两种问卷在民航后勤职工职业紧张调查中信效度分析

Reliability and validity of job content questionnaire vs effort-reward imbalance questionnaire in job stress evaluation for civil aviation staff

目的比较工作内容问卷1．0（JCQ1．0）与付出-回报失衡问卷（ERI）对民航后勤职工的职业紧张调查结果及信效度的差别。方法分别使用JCQ1．0核心版和ERI核心版对110名民航后勤职工进行职业紧张问卷调查，评定问卷的信度和效度。结果根据JCQ1．0的测试结果，高职业紧张、被动型、主动型及低职业紧张的比例分别为23．6％、20．9％、24．5％和30．9％；根据ERI的测试结果，59．1％的员工存在职业紧张。JCQ1．0三个模块的Cronbach仪系数为0．10～0．51，分半信度0．50；ERI三个模块的Cronbach“系数为0．35～0．79，分半信度0．78。Pearson相关检验证实两问卷大部分条目的结构效度较好，提取的因子方差累计贡献率分别为64．62％（JCQ1．0）和58．08％（ERI）。结论ERI问卷在民航职工中具有较好的信度与效度，JCQ1．0问卷在该人群中的应用尚需要进一步验证和修订。

Objective To compare the reliability and validity of job content questionnaire （JCQ1.0） and effort-reward imbalance （ERI） questionnaire in job stress study for civil aviation staff. Methods One hundred and ten individuals were investigated by JCQ1.0 and ERI questionnaire for job stress, and their reliability and validity were evaluated. Results In JCQ1.0, high-strain, active, passive, and low-strain workers accounted for 23.6% , 20. 9% , 24. 5% , and 30. 9% . Job stress was found in 59. 1% in ERI. The internal consistency reliabilities （Cronbach α） of the 3 dimensions in JCQ1.0 ranged from 0. 10 to 0. 51, and the split-half reliability was 0. 50; however, the internal consistency reliabilities （ Cronbach α） of the 3 dimensions in ERI ranged from 0. 35 to 0. 79, and the split-half reliability was 0. 78. Most items of both questionnaires showed good construct validities. In factor analysis, total variance contribution was 64. 62% （ JCQ1.0 ） and 58.08% （ ERI ） , respectively. Conclusion ERI may be a reliable and valid tool of job stress assessment; however, JCQ1.0 seems to need further modification.