期刊文献+

手术特质-状态焦虑量表的汉化及信效度检验

Chinesization and reliability and validity test of State⁃Trait Operation Angst(STOA)
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:对手术特质-状态焦虑量表(State-Trait Operation Angst,STOA)进行汉化,并在手术病人中检验其信效度。方法:通过正译、回译、文化调试和预调查对STOA量表进行汉化。通过2轮专家咨询进行内容效度评价。2021年1月—8月选取于成都市2所三级甲等医院就诊的960例手术病人进行调查,并进行量表信效度评价。结果:中文版STOA量表包括状态焦虑(10个条目)、特质焦虑(20个条目)2个维度,探索性因子分析共提取4个公因子,累计方差贡献率为65.78%。量表条目内容效度为0.82~1.00,总量表内容效度为0.95;总量表Cronbach’sα系数为0.97,特质焦虑及状态焦虑维度Cronbach’sα系数分别为0.89,0.96;总量表的重测信度为0.86,折半信度系数为0.98。结论:中文版STOA量表信效度良好,适合我国文化背景下手术病人术前焦虑的评估。 Objective:To test the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the State⁃Trait Operation Angst(STOA)in perioperative patients.Methods:STOA is Chineseized through literal translation,back translation,cultural debugging and pre⁃investigation.Evaluation of content validity through two rounds of expert advice.From January to August 2021,960 surgical patients were selected from two tertiary hospitals in Chengdu to investigate the reliability and validity of the scale.Results:The Chinese version of STOA includes two dimensions:state anxiety(10 items)and trait anxiety(20 items).Four common factors are extracted by exploratory factor analysis,and the cumulative variance contribution rate is 65.78%.The content validity of the scale items was 0.82⁃1.00,and that of the total scale was 0.95;the Cronbach'sαcoefficient of the total scale was 0.97,and the Cronbach'sαcoefficients of trait anxiety and state anxiety dimensions were 0.89 and 0.96,respectively.The test⁃retest reliability of the total scale is 0.86,and the split⁃half reliability coefficient is 0.98.Conclusion:The Chinese version of STOA scale has good reliability and validity,which is suitable for the evaluation of preoperative anxiety in surgical patients with Chinese cultural background.
作者 谭丽姝 王玉吉 黄燕 TAN Lishu;WANG Yuji;HUANG Yan(West China Second Hospital,Sichuan University,Sichuan 610041 China)
出处 《护理研究》 北大核心 2023年第20期3625-3631,共7页 Chinese Nursing Research
关键词 手术 焦虑 信度 效度 德尔菲专家咨询法 量表 surgery anxiety reliability validity Delphi method scale
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献48

  • 1Wynd CA,Schmidt B,Schaefer MA.Two quantitative approachesfor estimating content validity[J].Western J Nurs Res,2003,25(5):508–518.
  • 2Lindell MK,Brandt CJ,Whitney DJ.A revised index of interrateragreement for multi-item ratings of a single target[J].Appl PsycholMeasurem,1999,23(2):127–135.
  • 3Lawshe CH.A quantitative approach to content validity[J].Personne Psychol,1975,28(4):563–575.
  • 4Hambleton RK,Swaminathan H,Algina J,et al.Criterion-referencedtesting and measurement:Review of technical issues anddevelopments[J].Rev Educat Res,1978,48(1):11–22.
  • 5Martuza VR.Applying norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measurement in education[M].Boston:Allyn andBacon,1977:275–293.
  • 6Lynn MR.Determination and quantification of content validity[J].Nursing Res,1986,35(6):382–385.
  • 7Davis LL.Instrument review:Getting the most from your panel ofexperts[J].Appl Nurs Res,1992,5(4):194–197.
  • 8Polit DF,Beck CT.The content validity index:are you sure youknow what’s being reported?critique and recommendations[J].Res Nurs Health,2006,29(5):489–497.
  • 9Nora JJ.Causes old and new modes,mechanisms and models.Am Heart J,1993,125:1409
  • 10Hoffman JIE.Congenital heart disease:incidence and inheritance.Ped Clin North Am,1990,37:25

共引文献1464

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