期刊文献+

《世界卫生组织残疾评定量表》中文版在乳腺癌化疗患者中的信效度检验 被引量:6

Reliability and Validity Tests of the Chinese Version WHO DAS Ⅱ in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的为测量《世界卫生组织残疾评定量表》中文版的信度和效度,分析其在中国乳腺癌化疗患者中应用的可行性。方法对 142例乳腺癌化疗患者进行测评,采用内部一致性信度测量量表信度值,应用探索性因子分析和主成分分析法分析量表效度。结果总量表内部一致性信度值为0.83,各分量表信度值介于0.69~0.91之间。主成分分析法提取出8个因子,2个因子与原量表保持一致,3个因子是原量表一个因子的分解,2个因子是原量表1个因子的分解,还有1个因子是原量表2个因子的组合,所有因子特征根均大于1,累积方差贡献率达73.083%。结论《世界卫生组织残疾评定量表》中文版具有较好的信度,需要进行进一步研究验证其因子结构。 Objective To test the reliability and validity of the Chinese version WHO Disability Assessment Schedule(WHO DAS Ⅱ).Methods A total of 142 breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were recruited and completed WHO DAS Ⅱ.Internal consistency reliability,exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis were examined.Results Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.69 to 0.91 across factors,with an overall alpha of 0.83.Eight factors were found by principal component analysis with Varimax rotation.The two original factors' names were maintained.Two original factors were divided into two and three factors separately.The original two factors were combined to a new factor.These eight factors' eigenvalues were all bigger than 1,and in total accounted for 73.083% of the variance.Conclusion The Chinese version of WHO Disability Assessment Schedule(WHO DAS Ⅱ)could be a valuable measurement for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.Further studies are needed in different Chinese hospitals and in larger sample size to be conducted to validate its factor structure.
作者 赵海平 刘盈
出处 《中国医科大学学报》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2011年第4期323-326,共4页 Journal of China Medical University
基金 辽宁省教育厅高校科研计划(L2010677)
关键词 世界卫生组织残疾评定量表 信度 效度 WHO DAS Ⅱ reliability validity
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献22

  • 1邱卓英.《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》在残疾人体育中的应用[J].中国康复理论与实践,2004,10(12):787-789. 被引量:5
  • 2缪鸿石.中国康复医学诊疗规范[M].北京:华夏出版社,1998.392.
  • 3[4]Nollet F, Beelen A, Prins MH,et al. Disability and functional assessment in former polio patients with and without post polio syndrome[J]. Arc Phy Med Rehabil, 1999,80:136-431.
  • 4[5]Tennant A,Geddes JML,Fear J,et al. Outcome following stoke[J]. Disability Rehabil,1997,19:277-279.
  • 5[6]Verbrugge LM, Jette AM. The disablement process[J]. Social Sci Med,1994,38(1):1-14.
  • 6[7]Gagne J. What is treatment evaluation research? What is its relationship to the goals of audiological rehabilitation? Who are the stakeholders of this type of research[J]. Ear Hearin,2000,21(suppl 4):S60-S73.
  • 7[8]Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health-Status And Health Policy: Quality Of Life In Health Care Evaluation And Resource Allocation[M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1993.
  • 8[1]FENN P.Review of ICIDH 1980[M]. Sociology of Health and Illness: A Journal of Medical Sociology. UK,1982: 24.
  • 9[2]GARDENT H, ROUSSEL P, BONAIATO S, et al. Use of the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH) in Relation to Elderly People[M].London:Council of Europe Publishing,1997:45.
  • 10[3]ALBRECHT GL.The Disability Business: Rehabilitation in America[M]. London: Sage Library of Social Research, UK,1992:43.

共引文献64

同被引文献102

引证文献6

二级引证文献79

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部