影响贫困大学生心理健康的因素分析  

Factor analysis of psychological health of impoverished undergraduates

作　　者：刘兵[1] 谢琦[2] 陈建红[1] 吴宇萍[1] 李映章[1] 何军峰[1] 

机构地区：[1]仲恺农业技术学院心理辅导中心,广东省广州市510225 [2]广州医学院附属第一医院CT室,广东省广州市510180

出　　处：《中国组织工程研究与临床康复》2007年第17期3279-3281,共3页Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research

基　　金：广东高校自然科学基金资助项目(Z02052);仲恺农业技术学院教育教学改革研究项目(G2055014)~~

摘　　要：目的:了解影响高校贫困生心理健康的因素,以便有目的、有针对性开展心理咨询辅导工作。方法:2003-04在某高校1999/2003级共4届在校生6689人中选取436名学生作为调查对象。①观察组218名:入组条件:已接受国家助学贷款的贫困学生。该校接受助学贷款标准为:家庭经济困难(人均收入<200元/月),无力支付学费,且在接受贷款前尚未缴纳学费的学生。对照组:除外观察组学生,随机在4届学生中以班为单位整群抽样218名学生。②使用症状自评量表、抑郁自评量表、焦虑自评量表进行测评。其中症状自评量表分数越高,心理健康水平越低。以焦虑自评量表标准分≥50,抑郁自评量表标准分≥53为有焦虑抑郁症状。结果:观察组收回有效答卷213份,有效回收率为97%,对照组收回有效答卷210份,有效回收率为96%。①观察组症状自评量表总分为124.75±28.37,阳性项目数为28.05±8.64;对照组分别为125.05±27.98,26.19±16.14,两组比较差异无显著性(P>0.05)。②观察组症状自评量表中人际关系因子得分为2.18±0.45,敌对因子得分为1.29±0.35,偏执因子得分为2.04±0.26;对照组分别为1.51±0.45,1.37±0.42,1.44±0.44,两组相比差异均有显著性(P<0.05～0.001)。其他因子得分两组比较,差异无显著性(P>0.05)。③观察组焦虑自评量表粗分为28.43±5.63,标准分为35.29±6.13;抑郁自评量表粗分为29.62±6.26,标准分为37.71±8.04。对照组焦虑自评量表粗分为26.55±5.61,标准分为32.47±6.12;抑郁自评量表粗分为26.78±6.24,标准分为34.92±8.01。两组焦虑自评量表、抑郁自评量表得分均在正常范围,说明无焦虑、抑郁症状。结论:贫困大学生心理健康状况总体属正常范围;忧郁、焦虑不是主要症状;人际关系敏感和偏执是主要症状。AIM： To research the factor influencing psychological health of impoverished undergraduates, and develop the psychological counseling in a direct manner. METHODS： A total of 436 undergraduates were selected from 6 689 university students in April 2003. ①Observation group （n=218）： Impoverished undergraduates, whose family was in the financial straits, could not afford to pay tuition and accepted the national student loan; Contrast group： Other 218 undergraduates were adopted in cluster sampling, taking class as unit.②Symptom Checklist 90 （SCL-90）, Self-rating Depression Scale （SDS） and Serf-rating Anxiety Scale （SAS） were applied to test all the subjects. The higher scores of SCL-90 indicated the lower level of psychological health. The standard score of SDS ≥ 50 points and the one of SAS ≥ 53 points were defined as depression and anxiety. RESULTS,, Totally 213 questionnaires were taken back in observation group, with the valid recovery of 97%; And 210 questionnaires were taken back in contrast group, with the valid recovery of 96%.①The total score in SCL-90 was （12.4.75±28.37） points in observation group, and the number of positive items was 28.05±8.64; while contrast group had not significant differences （125.05±27.98, 26.19±16.14, P 〉 0.05）.②The impoverished undergraduates got （2.18±0.45） points in SCL-90 of interpersonal sensitivity, （1.29±0.35） points in SCL-90 of hostility, and （2.04±0.26） points in SCL-90 of paranoid ideation; whereas the corresponding scores were （1.51±0.45）, （1.37±0.42） and （1.44±0.44） points in contrast group, and there were significant differences between the two groups in above three factors （P〈 0.05-0.01）, while the differenca was insignificant in other factors （P 〉 0.05）.③In observation group, raw score in SAS was 28.43±5.63, standard score in SAS was 35.29±6.13; raw score in SDS was 29.62±6.26, standard score in SDS was 37.71±8.04; But in contrast group, the raw score in SAS was 26.55±

关 键 词：学生 贫困 精神卫生 

分 类 号：R395.13[哲学宗教—心理学]