SF-36量表应用于城市化居民生命质量评价的信度和效度分析  

Analysis on reliability and validity of SF-36 scale in urban residents

作　　者：王山[1] 樊文洁 俞婉琦 李剑[2] 徐丹戈[2] 曹红艳[2] 奚颖[2] 李秀央[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江大学医学院流行病与卫生统计学系,杭州310058 [2]杭州市江干区疾病预防控制中心,310004

出　　处：《中华流行病学杂志》2016年第3期344-347,共4页Chinese Journal of Epidemiology

基　　金：浙江省科学技术厅软科学研究计划重点项目（2015C25027）;浙江省医药卫生科技计划（2015KYA070）

摘　　要：目的 评价SF-36量表用于城市化居民生命质量评价的信度和效度,为选择合适的健康测量工具提供参考。方法 采用多阶段整群系统抽样方法,使用SF-36量表进行入户调查,利用Spearman-Brown系数和Cronbach＇s α 系数评价量表分半信度和内部一致性信度,集合效度实验和区分效度实验成功率评价量表集合效度和区分效度,采用相关分析和非参数检验以自评健康状况为标准进行标准关联效度分析,结构效度评价采用基于结构方程模型的验证性因子分析。结果 SF-36量表应用于城市化居民生命质量评价具有良好的分半信度（R=0.94）和内部一致性信度（除＂躯体疼痛＂和＂精力＂维度外,Cronbach＇s α 系数为0.70～0.91）,量表集合效度（定标成功率为88.57%）、区分效度（定标成功率为90.61%）和准则效度（γs=0.56,评分与自评健康状况相一致）良好,二阶验证性因子分析模型对数据拟合度较差（拟合优度指数为0.721,调整拟合优度指数为0.682,比较拟合指数为0.731,残差均方和平方根为0.084,近似误差均方为0.098）,提示结构效度欠佳。结论 SF-36量表用于城市化居民生存质量评价具有良好的信度、集合效度、区分效度和标准关联效度,但结构效度欠佳,建议在实际应用中对相应条目进行调整。Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of SF-36 scale in urban residents, and provide reference for the selection of suitable health measure tools for urban residents.Methods Multi-stage cluster stratified sampling was conducted to select the residents aged ≥18 years in three urbanized communities of Hangzhou. SF-36 scale was used for the measurement of the quality of life and Spearman-Brown and Cronbach＇s α coefficients were used for the evaluation of split-half reliability and internal consistency reliability. The convergent and discriminative validity were evaluated by using the success rate of experiments and the criterion-related validity was evaluated with correlation analysis and non-parameter test. Structural equation modeling was used in the evaluation of contract validity. Results SF-36 scale had good split-half reliability （R=0.94） and internal-consistency reliability （except for bodily pain and vitality, Cronbach＇s α range： 0.70-0.91）. The convergent validity （88.57%）, discriminate validity （successful rates 90.61%） and the criterion- related validity （γs=0.56, the score was consistent with the self-reported health status） were good. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis model was not well-fitted （GFI=0.721, AGFI=0.682, CFI=0.731, RMR=0.084, RMSEA=0.098）, indicating that the construct validity was poor.Conclusion The reliability, consolidation validity, discrimination validity and criterion-related validity of SF-36 scale were good, while the construct validity was poor. Improvement is needed when the scale is used for urban residents.

关 键 词：生命质量 SF-36量表 城市化 信度 效度 

分 类 号：R195[医药卫生—卫生统计学]