检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]南方医科大学护理学院,广东广州510515 [2]广州医学院护理学院
出 处:《护理学杂志》2010年第11期55-57,共3页
摘 要:目的了解护生认知情绪调节策略方式,为改进相关教学策略提供参考。方法采用认知情绪调节量表(CERQ)对682名护生进行调查。结果护生CERQ总分为110.10±11.39,9种调节策略得分9.19±2.68~14.34±2.72,排序前3位的情绪调节策略为重新关注计划、积极重新评价和接受;在校护生自我责难、接受、沉思、重新关注计划、积极重新评价5种策略得分显著高于实习护生(均P<0.01),灾难化策略得分显著低于实习护生(P<0.05)。结论护生在面对负性生活事件时较多运用积极认知策略;实习护生较在校护生更多运用灾难化策略;在校护生比实习护生更频繁运用自我责难、接受、沉思、重新关注计划、积极重新评价的策略。教学过程中应加强护生积极的认知情绪调节策略能力培养,尤其是进入实习阶段的护生,使之能以更多积极性策略应对负性生活事件。Objective To explore the cognitive emotion regulation strategies ot nursing students, ano to provide references for improying teaching strategies. Methods The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire(CERQ) was used to investigate 682 nursing students. Results The total score of CERQ was 110.10±11.39, with the scores of 9 regulation strategies ranging from 9.19± 2.68 to 14.34 ±2.72; the strategies that nursing students frequently used were refocusing on planning, positive reappraisal and acceptance. The scores of self-blame, acceptance, rumination, refocus on planning and positive reappraisal in school students were significantly higher than in clinical interns(P〈0.01 for all), and the score of catastrophizing in school students was significantly lower (P〈0.05). Conclusion Nursing students mostly use positive strategies to face negative life events; clinical interns use the strategy of catastrophizing more frequently than school students; the school students use the strategies of self blame, acceptance, rumina- tion, refocus on planning and positive reappraisal more frequently than clinical interns. During the process of teaching we should cultivate nursing students' positive cognitive emotion regulation strategies, especially clinical interns.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.117