累积职业应激暴露测量工具——工作史量表评价及应用研究  

Cumulative job stress exposure measurement——evaluation and application of work history questionnaire

作　　者：李伟 柯继红[2] 张俊权[2] 王生[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学医学部职业卫生与环境卫生学系,北京100083 [2]河北医科大学石油临床医学院,廊坊065000

出　　处：《中国职业医学》2007年第2期96-98,共3页China Occupational Medicine

基　　金：河北省廊坊市科学技术基金项目(2006050219)

摘　　要：目的评价职业应激累积暴露测量工具(工作史量表,WHQ)的信度和效度,探讨累积职业应激与血压的关系。方法对318名调查对象先后间隔6个月,发放自评量表,其中主要包括一般状况和WHQ,并在首次发放问卷的同时测量每位调查对象的血压。克朗巴赫系数估计量表的信度,Pearson相关计算重测信度,因子分析采用主成分法,职业应激累积暴露与血压的关系采用协方差分析。结果问卷回收率91%(n=288),5份工作WHQ的信度为0.69～0.81,6个月的重测信度0.81～0.91,因子分析提出3个公因子,各条目的因子载荷与理论基础相一致。WHQ主观把握度平均分4.51～4.62。不同职业应激累积暴露时间的收缩压和舒张压之间差异均有显著性(P<0.001)。结论WHQ可以作为评价职业应激累积暴露的工具,高血压与职业应激累积效应有关。Objective To evaluate cumulative job stress measurement（ work history questionnaire）and discuss the relationship between cumulative job stress and blood pressure. Methods There were 318 participants in our cross-sectional study. Selfreported questionnaires which mainly included characteristics of participants and work history questionnaire （WHQ） were dispatched to the participants respectively in December 2005 and 6 months later. Blood pressure was taken during the first interview. Cronbach＇ s alpha, Pearson correlation, factor analysis and ANOVA were used for data analysis. Results Rate of callback was 91% （ n =288）, Cronhach＇ s alphas for each WHQ were from 0.69 to 0. 81, the test-retest reliability was from 0. 81 to 0. 91. Exploratory factor analysis showed 3 meaningful factors that could explain the 3 theoretical dimensions and confirm the construct validity. Average scores of subject power of WHQ were 4. 51 -4. 62. There was significant difference between blood pressure and job stress exposure years （P 〈 0. 001 ）. Conclusion WHQ was a valid measurement in assessing cumulative job stress exposure. There was significant relationship between cumulative job stress effect and hypertension.

关 键 词：工作史量表 职业应激 累积暴露 评价 

分 类 号：R13[医药卫生—劳动卫生]