期刊文献+

简明健康状况调查问卷第二版评价成都市城镇居民生命质量适用性研究 被引量:36

Survey on the applicability of SF-36 version-2 (SF-36v2) in assessment quality of life among urban residents in Chengdu city
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的 探讨简明健康状况调查问卷第二版(SF-36v2)的测量学性能及用于评价成都市城镇居民生命质量的适用性.方法 于2012年10-12月,采用多阶段分层整群抽样方法,分别在成都市中心城区和周边乡镇地区进行抽样,选取年龄18周岁以上、思路清晰、能够自我表达的成年人作为调查对象,共2 186名.对调查对象进行问卷调查,内容包括一般健康状况和生命质量,生命质量调查采用SF-36v2.通过内部一致性信度、复测信度、结构效度等指标来评定SF-36v2的测量学性能.结果 共发放问卷2 186份,回收2 182份,有效问卷2 178份,有效率99.8%.SF-36v2的生理功能(PF)、生理职能(RP)、身体疼痛(BP)、一般健康状况(GH)、精力(VT)、社会功能(SF)、情感职能(RE)、精神健康(MH)等8个维度得分分别为(89.15±17.56)、(85.18 ±22.52)、(76.64±17.80)、(64.13±19.56)、(70.39±17.31)、(86.43±17.35)、(87.79±19.24)、(80.61±13.49)分;地板效应分别为0.28%、0.41%、0.23%、0.28%、0.09%、0.05%、0.14%、0.23%;天花板效应分别为51.38%、60.60%、58.08%、0.83%、2.94%、50.32%、64.00%、3.95%.条目集合效度除MH5(您快乐吗?)低于标准(r=0.40)外,其余条目均达到标准,总成功率为97.14%;区分效度SF、VT和MH维度成功率分别为93.75%、56.25%和97.50%,其余维度成功率100.00%,总区分效度成功率96.43%.内部一致性信度除SF维度0.603、VT维度0.697,其余维度信度范围0.724~0.974.两周复测信度系数范围0.610 ~0.845.因子分析产生两个公因子,分别代表生理健康和心理健康,累计方差贡献为64.40%.结论 SF-36v2作为第一版修订版,问题和答案布局更加友好,天花板效应和地板效应降低,在普通人群中生命质量评价有较好的信度和效度,可用于成都市城镇居民的生命质量评价. Objective To explore the psychometric performances and applicability of SF-36v2 in assessment quality of life among urban residents in Chengdu.Methods During Oct.to Dec.,2012,2 186 adult urban residents with clear mind and well self-express were recruited in the study by multistage stratified cluster sampling method in Chengdu urban area.The survey questionnaires included general health condition and quality of life,which was adopted the SF-36v2.Internal consistency reliability,test-retest reliability and construct validity were all analyzed as indicators of the psychometric performance.Results The survey released 2 186 questionnaires,with 2 182 ones returned and 2 178 (99.8%) met the data standard.The scores of 8 scales in SF-36v2,including physical function (PF),role-physical (RP),bodily pain (BP),general health (GH),vitality (VT),social function (SF),role-emotion (RE) and mental health (MH),were 89.15 ± 17.56,85.18 ± 22.52,76.64 ± 17.80,64.13 ± 19.56,70.39 ± 17.31,86.43 ± 17.35,87.79 ± 19.24 and 80.61 ± 13.49,respectively; the floor effects were 0.28%,0.41%,0.23%,0.28%,0.09%,0.05%,0.14% and 0.23%,respectively; and the ceiling effects were 51.38%,60.60%,58.08%,0.83%,2.94%,50.32%,64.00% and 3.95%,respectively.The item-convergent validities were all achieved the standard (r =0.40) except the item MH5 (Have you been happy?),and the total scaling success rate of item-convergent validity was 97.14%.The scales' success rates of item-discriminant validities for the SF,VT and MH scales were 93.75%,56.25% and 97.50% respectively,while the rates of others were 100.00% and the total success rate was 96.43%.The internal reliability ranged from 0.724 to 0.974 across all the scales,except for SF (r =0.603) and VT (r =0.697).The two-week test-retest reliability ranged from 0.610 to 0.845.Within factor analysis,two common factors were confirmed,separately representing physical health and mental health,altogether contributing 64.4% of the total variance.Conclusion As a revised version of SF-36vl,the SF-36v2 seemed to be more preferable in layout for questions and answers and could reduce the ceiling and floor effect.Additionally,it also showed comparatively well reliability and validity.And thereby we believed the SF-36v2 could be applied to assess the life quality among urban residents in Chengdu.
出处 《中华预防医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2014年第5期370-374,共5页 Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine
基金 高等学校博士学科点专项科研基金(20110181110038),志谢2012年成都市城镇居民生命质量调查的社区卫生工作人员和现场工作人员所付出的辛勤工作,参与调查的人们的理解和支持
关键词 健康调查 问卷调查 评价研究 Health survey Questionnaires Evaluation study
  • 相关文献

参考文献20

  • 1Ware JE Jr,Sherbourne CD.The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36).I.Conceptual framework and item selection[J].Med Care,1992,30(6):473-483.
  • 2Gandek B,Ware JE Jr,Aaronson NK,et al.Tests of data quality,scaling assumptions,and reliability of the SF-36 in eleven countries:results from the IQOLA Project.International Quality of Life Assessment[J].J Clin Epidemiol,1998,51(11):1149-1158.
  • 3Ware JE Jr,Gandek B.Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project[J].J Clin Epidemiol,1998,51 (11):903-912.
  • 4Ware JE Jr.SF-36 health survey update[J].Spine (Phila Pa 1976),2000,25(24):3130-3139.
  • 5Jenkinson C,Stewart-Brown S,Petersen S,et al.Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom[J].J Epidemiol Community Health,1999,53 (1):46-50.
  • 6Taft C,Karlsson J,Sullivan M.Performance of the Swedish SF-36 version 2.0[J].Qual Life Res,2004,13 (1):251-256.
  • 7Ware JE Jr,Kosinski M,Dewey JE.How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey[M].Lincoln,RI:Quality Metric Incorporated,2000.
  • 8李鹃,王宏.SF-36量表第二版应用于重庆市区居民生命质量研究的信效度检验[J].第四军医大学学报,2009,30(14):1342-1344. 被引量:42
  • 9刘嵘,高倩,李净海,胡立文,董国庆,高娜,王梅,刘扬.农村留守居民生命质量SF-36第二版信效度评价[J].中国公共卫生,2012,28(4):541-542. 被引量:11
  • 10Ware JE Jr,Gandek B.Methods for testing data quality,scaling assumptions,and reliability:the IQOLA Project approach[J].J Clin Epidemiol,1998,51 (11):945-952.

二级参考文献34

  • 1王宏,刘达伟.《初中学生生活质量评定量表》的考评[J].现代预防医学,2006,33(4):464-467. 被引量:14
  • 2孟亚军,李宁秀,陈建华,钱足庶,宋焰超.SF-36在中国HIV感染者中应用的信度和效度[J].现代预防医学,2007,34(13):2410-2412. 被引量:20
  • 3国家统计局人口与就业司.中国人口统计年鉴[M].北京:中国统计出版社,1997.4-6.
  • 4Morfeld M,Bullinger M,Nantke J,et al.The version 2.0 of the SF-36 Health Survey:results of a population-representative study[J].Soz Prsventivmed,2005,50 (5):292-300.
  • 5Jirarattanaphochai K,Jung S,Sumananont C,et al.Reliability of the medical outcomes study short-form survey version 2.0 (Thai version) for the evaluation of low back pain patients[J].Med Assoc Thai,2005,88(10):1355-1361.
  • 6Bunnag C,Leurmarnkul W,Jareoncharsri P,et al.Quality of life assessment in Thai patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using the SF-36 questionnaire (Thai version)[J].Rhinology,2005,43(2):99-103.
  • 7Jenkinson C,Stewart-Brown S,Petersen S,et al.Assessment of theSF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom[J].J Epidemiol Commu-nity Health,1999,53(1):46-50.
  • 8Jirarattanaphochai K,Jung S,Sumananont C,et al.Reliability ofthe medical outcomes study short form survey version 2.0(Thaiversion)for the evaluation of low back pain patients[J].J MedAssoc Thai,2005,88(10):1355-1361.
  • 9Ware JE Jr, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al.SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide.Boston: New England Medical Center the Health Institute,1993.1-12.
  • 10Perneger TV, Leplege A, Etter JF,et al.Validation of a French-language version of the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey(SF-36) in young healthy adults.J Clin Epidemiol, 1995,48:1051-1060.

共引文献3410

同被引文献367

引证文献36

二级引证文献373

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