期刊文献+

技术焦虑量表的汉化及其在老年群体中的信效度检验 被引量:22

Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Technophobia scale in older adults
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的汉化技术焦虑量表,并检验其在老年人群中的信效度。方法对量表进行翻译、回译和跨文化调适,形成中文版技术焦虑量表;2021年1月—6月采用便利抽样法调查431名老年人,评估量表的信效度。结果技术焦虑量表共13个条目,探索性因子析出技术紧张、技术害怕、隐私安全担忧3个因子,累计方差贡献率为67.24%。验证性因子分析显示,3因子模型拟合良好。总量表的Cronbach’s α系数为0.911,3个因子Cronbach’s α系数为0.759~0.885,折半信度系数为0.851。结论技术焦虑量表的信效度良好,适用于评估老年人的技术焦虑程度,可为未来实施技术焦虑的干预及个性化数字健康服务提供参考。 Objective To sinicize the Technophobia scale and evaluate its validity and reliability in older adults.Methods The expressions of the Chinese version of the Technophobia scale were determined through translation,back translation and cross-cultural adaptation.Totally 431 elderly people were recruited for questionnaire survey.Results The Chinese scale includes 13 items.Findings from the exploratory factor analysis revealed that 3 factors including techno-anxiety,techno-paranoia and privacy concerns were extracted and explained 67.24%of the cumulative variance.In validated factor analysis,the three-factor model fitted the data well.Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the overall scale was 0.911;the Cronbach’sαcoefficient of the 3 factors was 0.759~0.885;the half-reliability coefficient was 0.851.Conclusion The Technophobia scale has been proved to be reliable and valid,which can be used to assess the level of technophobia,and it can further provide a reference for future interventions for technophobia and individualized digital health services among the elderly population.
作者 孙尔鸿 高宇 叶旭春 SUN Erhong;GAO Yu;YE Xuchun
出处 《中华护理杂志》 CSCD 北大核心 2022年第3期380-384,共5页 Chinese Journal of Nursing
基金 国家自然科学基金面上项目(71974196)。
关键词 技术焦虑 老年人 效度 信度 数字健康服务 护理 Technophobia Aged Validity Reliability Digital Health Services Nursing Care
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献103

  • 1乌尔里希.贝克,刘宁宁,沈天霄.风险社会政治学[J].马克思主义与现实,2005,57(3):42-46. 被引量:162
  • 2周爱保,张学民,舒华,何立国.字体、字号和词性对汉字认知加工的影响[J].应用心理学,2005,11(2):128-132. 被引量:23
  • 3张玲,王洁,张寄南.转基因食品恐惧原因分析及其对策[J].自然辩证法通讯,2006,28(6):57-61. 被引量:8
  • 4[1]Tucker L R, Lewis C. The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1973, 38: 1~10
  • 5[2]Steiger J H, Lind J M. Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Psychometrika Society Meeting, IowaCity, May, 1980
  • 6[3]Bentler P M, Bonett D G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88: 588~ 606
  • 7[4]Bentler P M. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,1990, 107: 238~ 246
  • 8[5]McDonald R P, Marsh H W. Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 1990,107: 247~ 255
  • 9[6]Marsh H W, Balla J R, Hau K T. An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical processes. In: Marcoulides G A, Schumacker R E eds. Advanced structural equation modeling techniques. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996. 315~ 353
  • 10[7]Browne M W, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen K A, Long J S eds. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993. 136~ 162

共引文献1322

同被引文献197

引证文献22

二级引证文献23

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