摘要
目的:评价Liebowitz社交焦虑量表(LSAS)中文版的信度和效度及其在中国社交焦虑(SAD)患者中的使用。方法:本研究采取多中心合作。实际完成754例,其中病例组(SAD组)167例,普通人组587名。评定工具有Liebowitz社交焦虑量表、Hamilton焦虑量表(HAMA)、临床总体印象(CGI)中的严重度指数(SI)和总体改善指数(GI)。病例组于治疗前后作3次评定,LSAS同时作他评和自评。普通人组作1次LSAS他评,其中1/3同时作自评。结果:①各项目与总分有很好的相关性,相关系数在0.32~0.97,各分量表的α系数>0.9。②间隔1周和8周后的重测信度良好(P<0.01)。③SAD组的LSAS总分和害怕、回避分量表分均显著高于普通人组,差异均有显著性,显示具有较好的区分效度。④无论自评还是他评,害怕与回避2分量表高度相关,与总分间高度相关,有很好的结构效度。⑤与HAMA和CGI鄄SI间的相关系数均在0.5以上,相关具显著性。治疗减分与CGI鄄GI呈负相关,显示平行效度与治疗效度较好。⑥自评与他评高度相关,r>0.89,但病例组自评平均得分高于他评,两者差异有显著性。⑦以LSAS总分≥38分为分界值,其诊断SAD的灵敏度为83.0%(自评85.5%);特异度为81.3%。结论:LSAS适合于中国人群。有良好的信度和效度。该量表可以用作自评。以38分为界诊断SAD,有较满意的灵敏?
Objective To assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) and its applicability in Chinese social anxiety disorder. Methods A multi-center study, including 167 cases of social anxiety disordor(SAD) and 587 cases of non-SAD, was carried out. LSAS, Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), the Severity Index (SI) and Global Improvement (GI) of Clinical Global Impression (CGI) were all used. The SAD group was scored by LSAS, HAMA and SI before treatment and after 8 weeks of treatment and by LSAS after 1 week of treatment. LSAS was administered by both clinician-scoring and self-scoring. The non-SAD group was measured with LSAS by clinician-scoring and one third of them also did self-scoring. Results 1 The internal consistency of the LSAS was quite good with item-total score if item deleted, with the correlation being 0.32-0.97 and the 4 subscale α above 0.9. 2 The rsults of scoring after 1 and 8 weeks of treatmen showed good correlation (P<0.01). 3 The average score of total scale, total fear and total avoidance in SAD group were all higher than that of non-SAD group with statistical significance. 4 The scores of total fear and total avoidance were closely correlated with each other and with total scale in both clinician-rating and self-rating. 5 Good parallel validity and treatment validity were showed by the positive correlation of LSAS total score and HAMA, CGI-SI (r>0.5, P<0.01) and negative correlation of LSAS total score reduction before and after treatment and CGI-GI. 6Clinician-scoring and self-scoring were closely correlated (r>0.89) but the average of self-scoring was higher than clinician-scoreing in SAD group (P<0.05). 7 Cut-off of 38 in diagnosing SAD on the LSAS total score showed a sensitivity of 83.0% (85.5% for self-rating) and a specificity of 81.3%. Conclusion These findings support the use of the Chinese version of LSAS for social anxiety disorders among Chinese with good reliability and validity. It could be used for self-scoring. Cut-off of 38 of the total score represents the best balance of sensitivity and specificity.
出处
《诊断学理论与实践》
2004年第2期89-93,共5页
Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice