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]中国中南大学湘雅二医院医学心理学研究所,长沙410011
出 处:《中国健康心理学杂志》2013年第11期1684-1687,共4页China Journal of Health Psychology
摘 要:目的 检验中国大五人格问卷-简版(CBF-PI-B)在护士群体应用中的信效度.方法 采用CBF-PI-B对长沙市医疗机构356名护理人员进行调查.结果 ①量表所有条目的CR值为22.50 ~39.10(P<0.01);②量表具有很好的信度系数,内部一致性系数在0.716(宜人性)~0.773(神经质)之间,平均0.745;间隔8周的重测系数在0.722(严谨性)~0.777(外倾性)之间,平均0.748;建构信度在0.772(开放性)~0.821(严谨性)之间,平均0.796;③效度方面,模型拟合指标x2/df=2.728,GFI=0.878,GFI=0.849,CFI=0.853,IFI=0.844,TLI=0.802,RMSEA=0.064;量表5个维度间的相关系数为0.055~0.568,各维度内所有条目平均相关系数为0.596 ~ 0.624;神经质维度与DASS-C21总分及各分量表得分呈中等以上水平的显著正相关(r>0.4,P<0.01),严谨性和外倾性维度与DASS-C21总分及各分量表得分呈显著负相关(P<0.01).结论 CBF-PI-B应用于护士群体有很好的信效度.Objective To examine the reliability and validity of the CBF - PI in Chinese nurses population. Methods A total of 356 nurses in the medical institutions of Changsha were investigated with the CBF - PI. Results (1)The CR of items ranged from 22.50 39.10(P 〈0.01 ). 2)Internal consistency reliabihties of the CBF - PI - B ranged from 0.716(A) to 0.773 (N) ,the mean was 0.745. The retest reliabilities after 8 weeks ranging from 0. 722 ( C ) to 0. 777 ( E), the mean was 0. 748. The construct reliabilities ranged from 0. 772 (O) to 0.821 (C) , the mean was 0. 796. (3)The fit indexes of confirmatory factor analysis were X2/df = 2. 728, GFI = 0. 878, GFI = 0. 849, CFI -- 0. 853, IFI = 0. 844, TLI = 0. 802, RMSEA = 0. 064. The correlation coefficient among factors ranging from 0.055 - 0. 568, and the average correlation coefficient among items of every factor ranging from 0. 596 - 0.624. The C and N strongly correlated with the DASS - C21. Conclusion The CBF - PI is reliable and valid for application in nurses population.
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:216.73.216.158