父母养育心理灵活性问卷中文版的信效度初步研究

A preliminary study of validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Parental Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire

目的:修订父母养育心理灵活性问卷(PPFQ)中文版并检验其信效度。方法:选取北京某两所小学学生的父母共1075人,回收有效问卷1015份。随机选取其中的一半(n=510)进行探索性因子分析,另一半(n=505)进行验证性因子分析和区别效度检验。在总样本中随机选取389人,用认知融合问卷(CFQ)、接纳与行动问卷第二版(AAQ-Ⅱ)、自评焦虑量表(SAS)、自评抑郁量表(SDS)、正念注意觉知量表(MAAS)、特质应对方式问卷(TCSQ)和Conners儿童行为问卷(CBRS)检验效标效度。间隔7周后,从总样本中随机选取225人进行重测。结果:经过3次探索性因子分析,得到的PPFQ中文版有16个条目,包含认知解离、接纳和承诺行动3个因子,累计方差解释率58.1%,载荷为0.63~0.86;验证性因子分析表明三因子模型拟合良好(χ~2/df=1.77,NFI=0.94,IFI=0.97,GFI=0.96,TLI=0.96,CFI=0.97,RMSEA=0.04);3个因子彼此之间均具有良好的区别效度(均P<0.01);PPFQ总分及各分问卷得分与CFQ、AAQ-Ⅱ、SAS、SDS、TCSQ消极应对、CBRS得分均呈负相关(r=-0.16^-0.52,均P<0.01),与MAAS、TCSQ积极应对得分均呈正相关(r=0.14~0.37,均P<0.01)。问卷的Cronbachα系数为0.77~0.86,重测信度为0.55~0.75。结论:修订后的父母养育心理灵活性问卷中文版的效度和信度良好,可用于评估父母养育心理灵活性。

Objective： To revise the Chinese version of the Parental Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire （PPFQ） and test its validity and reliability. Methods： Totally 1015 parents from 2 primary school of Beijing were re- cruited and asked to complete the Chinese version of PPFQ. Item analysis was conducted to identify valid items. The parents were randomly allocated into two groups where one subset （n = 510） was used for exploratory factor analysis （EFA）, and the other （n--505） for confirmatory factor analysis （CFA） and discriminant validity. In addition, responses of 389 participants selected by simple random sampling was assessed in criterion validity with the Cogni- tive Fusion Questionnaire（CFQ）, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-Second Edition （AAQ-Ⅱ）, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale （SAS）, Self-Rating Depression Scale （SDS）, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale （MAAS）, Trait Coping Style Questionnaire（TCSQ） and Conners Child Behavior Rating Scale （CBRS）. Seven weeks later, 225 of the participants were retested. Results： The exploratory factor analysis extracted 3 components, and explained 58.1% of the total variance. The factor loading of items ranged between 0. 63 and 0. 86. The confirmatory factor analysis verified the 3-factors model （X^2/df= 1.77, NFI = 0. 94, IFI=0. 97, GFI = 0. 96, TLI = 0. 96, CFI = 0. 97, RMSEA = 0. 04）. Discriminant validity testing demonstrated the three revised factors had adequate discriminant va- lidity in relation to one another （Ps 〈 0. 01）. Criterion validity results showed that the total and subscale scores of the PPFQ were negatively correlated with the scores of CFQ, AAQ- II, SAS, SDS, TCSQ-NC, CBRS （r = -0. 16 - -0. 52, Ps 〈 0.01）, and were positively correlated with the scores of MAAS, TCSQ-PC （r = 0. 14 -0. 37, Ps 〈 0. 01）. The total and subscale scores of the PPFQ demonstrated good internal consistency Cronbach＇s α were 0. 77 - 0. 86 and test-retest reliability coefficient were 0. 55 - 0. 75. Conclusion： It suggests the validity and reliability of the adapted Chinese version of the Parental Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire be satisfactory, and could be used in the clinical and research work in China.