应对方式在军人焦虑敏感性与作业疲劳间的多重中介效应

Multiple mediation effects of coping styles in anxiety sensitivity and work-related fatigue among military personnel

目的探讨应对方式在军人焦虑敏感性与作业疲劳间的多重中介效应。方法选择某陆军部队发放心理问卷《焦虑敏感性指数量表-3》、《简易应对方式量表》和《作业疲劳症状自评量表》,有效回收240份,运用结构方程模型分析变量间关系。结果 1军人作业疲劳在服役年限、是否独生子女、入伍前户籍和文化程度等人口学维度上差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但职别(士兵/士官/干部)维度上差异有统计学意义[F(2,237)=3.087,P=0.047],士兵和士官的疲劳感受度显著高于军人干部[(9.22±3.78)vs(7.31±3.20),LSD-t=1.917,P=0.044;(9.67±3.97)vs(7.31±3.20),LSD-t=2.365,P=0.014]。2高焦虑敏感性军人困倦感、情绪不安感、不快感、怠倦感、视觉疲惫度和总疲惫度高于低焦虑敏感性军人(P<0.001)。3除积极应对和消极应对相关性不显著,焦虑敏感性总分和各因子分、积极应对、消极应对和作业疲劳两两相关(P<0.01);且焦虑敏感性、积极应对方式和消极应对方式可以预测作业疲劳程度,可解释作业疲劳总变异的31.7%。4多重中介效应模型和Bootstrap检验结果显示,焦虑敏感性能够通过积极应付方式和消极应对方式间接影响作业疲劳(χ2/df=1.836,P=0.076,GFI=0.984,AGFI=0.951,NFI=0.979,RFI=0.955,IFI=0.990,TLI=0.979,CFI=0.990,RMSEA=0.059),积极应对、消极应对和总的中介效应效果量分别为18.2%、18.2%和36.4%。结论应对方式在军人焦虑敏感性与作业疲劳间起到并行多重中介作用,应重点关注高焦虑敏感性个体的作业疲劳程度,改善其应对方式,控制作业效能下降。

Objective To investigate relationship between anxiety sensitivity （AS） the multiple mediation effects of coping styles on the and work-related fatigue among military personnel. Methods Anxiety sensitivity index Ⅲ （ASI-3）, simplified coping style questionnaire （SCSQ） and work related fatigue feeling questionnaire （WRFFQ） were surveyed in the soldiers of an army force, and 240 valid questionnaires were collected. The relationships between variables were analyzed by structure equation modeling. Results （1）There were no statistically significant differences in work-related fatigue of military personnel with respect to demographic factors such as service length, whether from single-child family, residence prior to army and education level （ P 〉 0. 05 ）, but significantly differences were seen in military rank level （soldiers/officers/cadres） [ F（2, 237） = 3. 087 ,P = 0. 0471. Soldiers and officers had a higher score of fatigue than cadres （9.22±3.78 vs 7.31 ±3.20,LSD-t =1.917,P =0.044;9.67 ±3.97 vs 7.31 ±3.20,LSD-t = 2. 365, P = 0. 014 ）. （2）Soldiers with high-AS scored higher in drowsiness, emotional anxiety, discomfort, tiredness, visual fatigue, and total score of WRFFQ compared with those with low-AS （P 〈 0. 001 ）. （3）Except for the correlation between negative and positive coping styles, both anxiety sensitivity＇ s score （the total score and each factor＇s score） and coping styles （both positive and negative） were strongly associated with the fatigue （P 〈 0. 01 ）. This correlation was able to predict fatigue significantly and explain 31.7% of the total variation. （4）Multiple mediation modeling and Bootstrap test showed that the anxiety sensitivity had indirect effects on fatigue through the mediation effects of negative and positive coping styles （ Х^2/df = 1. 836, P = 0. 076, GFI = 0. 984, AGFI = 0.951, NFI = 0. 979, RFI = 0. 955, IFI = 0. 990, TLI = 0. 979,CFI = 0. 990, RMSEA = 0. 059 ）. The mediation effect of negative and positive coping styles were 18.2% and 18.2%, respectively, and the total mediation effect was 36.4%. Conclusion Both the negative and positive coping styles exert multiple medication effects on the relationship between anxiety sensitivity and work-related fatigue. More attention should be paid to the fatigue of high-AS individuals, helping them to modify their coping styles in order to avoid the declined efficiency in performance.