压力信念量表在中国大学生群体中的信效度检验

Testing Reliability and Validity of the Beliefs about Stress Scale in Chinese University Undergraduate

目的:修订压力信念量表(Beliefs About Stress Scale,BASS)中文版,并在国内大学生群体中检验其信度、效度和跨性别的测量等值性。方法:采用方便取样,共选取1100名大学生进行测试,回收有效问卷960份,用以评定BASS中文版的结构效度、内部一致信度、分半信度和测量等值性,以生活取向测验(Life Orientation Test Revised,LOT-R)和大学生压力量表(Stress Scale for College Student,SSCS)为效标,4周后,随机选取90名大学生进行重测。结果:BASS中文版消极压力信念、积极压力信念与可控信念三个分量表的内部一致性信度分别为0.81、0.80和0.61,分半信度分别为0.75、0.75,0.68,重测信度分别为0.74、0.74、0.68。消极压力信念、积极压力信念、可控信念得分与大学生压力、悲观和乐观的相关系数分别为0.478、-0.162、-0.280,-0.139、0.181、0.226和0.254、-0.134、-0.256。验证性因素分析显示,三因素模型的各项拟合指数均拟合良好(χ^2/df=2.30,CFI=0.93,TLI=0.92,RMSEA=0.05,SRMR=0.05)。多组验证性因素分析结果显示,跨性别的形态等值、弱等值、强等值和严格等值模型均被接受。结论:BASS中文版具有良好的信效度以及跨性别的测量等值性,可以作为测量我国大学生群体压力信念的有效工具。

Objective:To test reliability,validity and measurement invariance of the Chinese version of Beliefs about Stress Scale(BASS)in Chinese university undergraduate.Methods:1100 undergraduates were investigated by using conve?nience sampling method.90 students were followed to complete the Chinese version of BASS after 4 weeks for test-retest re?liability.Life Orientation Test Revised(LOR-T)and Stress Scale for College Student(SSCS)were used as the criteria-relat?ed validity instrument.Results:The internal consistency reliabilities of negative stress beliefs,positive stress beliefs and control beliefs were 0.81,0.80 and 0.61 respectively,the split-half reliability were 0.75,0.75 and 0.68 respectively,and the test-retest reliabilities were 0.74,0.74 and 0.68 respectively.Negative stress beliefs,positive stress beliefs and control beliefs were correlated with life orientation and stress of college students.Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the three-factor model of BASS had good fit with the data(χ^2/df=2.30,CFI=0.93,TLI=0.92,RMSEA=0.05,SRMR=0.05).The configural,metric,scalar and strict invariance of the Chinese version of BASS across gender were all acceptable.Conclu?sion:The Chinese version of Beliefs about Stress Scale has good reliability and validity,as well as gender equivalence.