简明神经精神量表中文版在老年痴呆患者中的信效度  

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire(NPI-Q)in patlents with Alzheimer' s disease

作　　者：伍力[1,2] 王燕[2] 李超[2] 伍星[2] 许秀峰[1] 

机构地区：[1]昆明医学院第一附属医院精神科,昆明650032 [2]云南省精神病医院,昆明650224

出　　处：《中国心理卫生杂志》2010年第2期103-107,共5页Chinese Mental Health Journal

摘　　要：目的:建立简明神经精神量表(Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire,NPI-Q)的中文版,并考察其在老年痴呆患者中的信度和效度。方法:经原作者同意后,将NPI-Q翻译为中文版。10例痴呆患者由3名测评员使用NPI-Q联合评定,检验量表的评定者间一致性信度。对86例痴呆患者及30例健康对照进行AD病理行为评分表(behavioral pathologyin Alzheimer's disase,BEHAVE-AD)、简明精神病量表(The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale,BPRS)与NPI-Q评定,检验量表的效标效度,其中30例痴呆患者间隔24h重复评定,检验量表的重测信度。结果:(1)内部一致性,NPI-Q的严重程度分量表Cronbach α系数为0.566,条目间平均相关系数为0.098;痛苦程度分量表Cronbach α系数为0.642,条目间平均相关系数为0.130。(2)评定者间一致性信度,严重程度分量表组内相关性系数(ICC)为0.97;痛苦程度分量表组内相关性系数(ICC)为0.94。(3)重测信度,严重程度分量表重测相关系数为0.89;痛苦程度分量表重测相关系数为0.86。(4)效标效度,严重程度分量表总分与BEHAVE-AD总分、BPRS总分相关系数分别为0.70和0.40;痛苦程度分量表总分与BEHAVE-AD总评相关系数为0.76。(5)痴呆组严重程度、痛苦程度评分均高于正常对照(中位数:10vs.1.5,10vs.0;均P<0.001)。(6)探索性因子分析获得精神病性、异常行为、失自控及情感障碍4个公因子。4个公因子对方差的累计贡献率为58.3%。各条目在相应公因子上的因子负荷在0.596～0.803之间。结论:简明神经精神量表中文版的信效度符合量表测量学的要求,但仍然需要扩大样本进行更深入的研究分析。Objective： To develop the Chinese version of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire （NPI- Q） and evaluate its reliability and validity. Methods： Three investigators assessed 10 dementia cases together with the NPI-Q to evaluate the inter-rater reliability. Eightysix dementia cases and 30 healthy controls were assessed with the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer＇s Disease （ BEHAVE-AD ）, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale （ BPRS ） and NPI-Q to evaluate the criterion validity. A subgroup of 30 dementia cases was tested with the NPI-Q again 24 h later to evaluate the test-retest reliability. Results： （ 1 ） Internal consistency. Cronbach＇s α coefficient of the severity subscale was 0. 589, mean inter-item correlation coefficient of the severity subscale was 0. 107. Cronbach＇s α coefficient of the distress subscale was 0. 612, and the mean inter-item correlation coefficient of the distress subscale was 0. 114. （2 ） Inter-rater reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient （ ICC ） of the severity subscale was 0. 97, and ICC of the distress subscale was 0. 94. （ 3 ） Test-retest reliability. The test-retest correlation coefficient of the severi- ty subscale was 0. 89, and the test-retest correlation coefficient of the distress subscale was 0. 86. （ 4 ） Criterion va-lidity. The severity subscale total score was correlated significantly with BEHAVE-AD （ r = 0.70, P 〈 0. 001 ） and BPRS （r = 0. 40, P 〈 0. 001） total score; the distress subscale total score was correlated significantly with the global ratings in part 2 of BEHAVE-AD （ r = 0. 76, P 〈 0. 001 ） . （ 5 ） The severity subscale total score in dementia group was significantly higher than that in control group （ median： 10 vs. 1.5, P 〈 0. 001） . The distress subscale total score in dementia group was significantly higher than that in control group （ median： 10 vs. 0; P 〈 0. 001） . （ 6 ） Exploratory factor analysis identified 4 common factors, including psychosis, abnormal beha

关 键 词：神经精神量表 信度 效度 心理测量学研究 

分 类 号：R749.041[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学] B845.1[医药卫生—临床医学]