期刊文献+

Development and psychometric assessment of the public health emergency risk perception scale:Under the outbreak of COVID-19

突发公共卫生事件风险感知量表的编制及信效度检验
下载PDF
导出
摘要 Objective:Correctly understanding and evaluating the level of public risk perception toward public health emergencies not only helps experts and decision-makers understand the public’s preventative health behaviors to these emergencies but also enhances their risk information communication with the public.The aim of this study was to develop a risk perception scale for public health emergencies and test its validity and reliability during the coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19)pandemic.Methods:Guided by the theoretical model of risk perception,an initial scale was generated through literature review,group meetings,resident interviews,and expert consultation.A pretest and item screening were then conducted to develop a formal risk perception scale for public health emergencies.Finally,the reliability and validity of the scale were validated through a questionnaire survey of 504 Chinese adults.Results:The final scale had 9 items.The content validity index of the scale was 0.968,and the content validity index of individual items ranged from 0.83 to 1.00.Three common factors,dread risk perception,severe risk perception,and unknown risk perception,were extracted for exploratory factor analysis,and together they explained 66.26%of the variance in the score.Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model had a satisfactory fit,whereχ^(2)/df=1.384,the goodness-of-fit index(GFI)=0.989,root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA)=0.028,root mean square residual(RMR)=0.018,comparative fit index(CFI)=0.995,normed fit index(NFI)=0.982,and non-normed fit index(NNFI)=0.990.The correlations between dimensions ranged from 0.306 to 0.483(P<0.01).Cronbach’s a was 0.793 for the total scale and ranged between 0.687 and 0.801 for the individual dimensions.The split-half coefficient was 0.861 for the total scale and ranged from 0.727 to 0.856 for induvial dimensions.The test-retest coefficient was 0.846 for the total scale and ranged from 0.843 to 0.868 for induvial dimensions.Conclusion:The developed scale for the risk perception of public health emergencies showed acceptable levels of reliability and validity,suggesting that it is suitable for evaluating residents’risk perception of public health emergencies. 目的编制突发公共卫生事件风险感知量表并在新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情中检验其效度和信度。方法以风险感知维度理论模型为理论指导,通过查阅相关文献、小组会议、居民访谈、专家咨询拟定初始量表,进行预调查和项目分析后形成正式突发公共卫生事件风险感知量表;对504名接受调查的湖南省居民资料进行分析,检验量表信效度。结果量表包含9个条目,内容效度指数(S-CVI)为0.968,各条目内容效度指数(I-CVI)为0.83~1.00;探索性因子分析共抽取“恐惧风险感知”“严重风险感知”和“未知风险感知”3个公因子,累积方差贡献率为66.258%;验证性因子分析显示模型拟合良好(χ^(2)/df=1.384,GFI=0.989,RMSEA=0.028,RMR=0.018,CFI=0.995,NFI=0.982,NNFI=0.990);各维度之间的相关性为0.306~0.483(P<0.01);总量表的Cronbach'sα系数为0.793,各维度Cronbach'sα系数为0.687~0.697;总量表折半系数为0.861,各维度折半系数为0.727~0.856。结论突发公共卫生事件风险感知量表在新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情中应用有良好的信度和效度,适合用于评价居民在应对突发公共卫生事件时的风险感知水平。
作者 Zhiying Shen Zhuqing Zhong Jianfei Xie Siqing Ding Shougen Li Chengyuan Li 沈志莹;钟竹青;谢建飞;丁四清;李守根;李成媛(Department of Hematology,the Third Xiangya Hospital,Central South University,Changsha,Hunan,China;Clinical Nursing Safety Management Reasearch Center of Central South University,the Third Xiangya Hospital,Central South University,Changsha,Hunan,China;Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine,the Third Xiangya Hospital,Central South University,Changsha,Hunan,China)
出处 《International Journal of Nursing Sciences》 CSCD 2021年第1期87-94,I0006,共9页 国际护理科学(英文)
关键词 COVID-19 EMERGENCIES Pandemics Public health Risk perception Surveys and questionnaires 新型冠状病毒肺炎 突发事件 大流行 公共卫生 风险感知 问卷调查
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献22

  • 1Gullone E. Developmental Psychopathology and Normal Fear [J]. Behaviour Change, 1996, 13(3) : 143-155.
  • 2Basoglu M, Salcmogu E, Livanou M. Traumatic Stress Responses in Earthquake Survivors in Turkey [J]. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2002, 15(4) : 269-276.
  • 3Eisen A R, Kearney C A. Practioner' s Guide to Treating Fear and Anxiety in Children and Adolescents: A Cognitive Behavioral Approach [M]. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995.
  • 4Armfield J M. Cognitive Vulnerability : A Model of the Etiology of Fear [J]. Clinical Psychology Review, 2006, 26 (6) : 746-768.
  • 5Karairmak O, Aydin G. Reducing Earthquake-Related Fears in Victim and Nonvictim Children [J].The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 2008, 169(2): 177-185.
  • 6Craske M G, Zarate R, Burton T, et al. Specific Fears and Panic Attacks: A Survey of Clinical and Nonclinical Samples [J]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 1993, 7(1) : 1-19.
  • 7Zvolensky M J, Eifert G H, Lejuez C W, et al. Assessing the Perceived Predictability of Anxiety-related Events: A Report on the Perceived Predictability Index [ J ]. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2000, 31 (3/ 4) : 201-218.
  • 8Slovic P. The Perception of Risk [M]. London: Earthscan, 2000.
  • 9Graziano A M, Degiovanni I S, Garcia K A. Behavioral Treatment of Children's Fears: A Review[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86(4): 804-830.
  • 10Kozak M J, Miller G A. Hypothetical Constructs Versus Intervening Variables: A Re-appraisal of the Three-systems Model of Anxiety Assessment [J]. Behavioral Assessment, 1982, 4: 347-358.

共引文献13

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