目的 基于项目反应理论和经典测量理论检验职业悲伤反应量表在实习护生中的信效度。方法 便利选取450名实习护生进行问卷调查,运用项目反应理论和经典测量理论方法评价量表信效度。结果 最终形成的量表包含情感反应（14个条目）、生理和认知反应（16个条目）2个维度,共30个条目。项目反应理论结果显示各条目的加权均方拟合统计量和未加权均方拟合统计量范围在0.840~1.400;条目难度与个体能力的平均值相差0.750 logits;“有点符合”和“比较符合”选项的阈值差值偏小;不同性别和年龄的实习护生的项目功能差异值均<0.640 logits。个体和条目的信度范围在0.840~0.980,个体和条目的分离指数范围在2.290~6.860。经典测量理论结果显示2因子的累计方差贡献率为52.472%,模型拟合配适度符合要求,且聚合效度可靠;量表的Cronbach α系数为0.931,2个维度的Cronbach α系数分别为0.865、0.955。结论 修订后的职业悲伤反应量表具有良好的心理测量学质量,可用于实习护生的职业悲伤测评。
Abstract
Objective To test the reliability and validity of the Professional Grief Reaction Scale among nursing interns based on Item Response Theory (IRT) and Classical Test Theory (CTT). Methods A convenience sample of 450 nursing students with internship experience was surveyed by using the Professional Grief Reaction Scale. Both IRT and CTT were used to evaluate the scale’s reliability and validity. Results The final scale consisted of two dimensions: Emotional Response (14 items) and Physical and Cognitive Response (16 items). IRT indicated that the information-weighted mean square fit statistic (Infit MNSQ) and the unweighted mean square fit statistic (Outfit MNSQ) for all items ranged from 0.840 to 1.400. The average difference between item difficulty and individual ability was 0.750 logits. The threshold differences between the options "somewhat agree" and "fairly agree" were small. Differential item functioning values for interns of different genders and ages were all below 0.640 logits. The reliability of individuals and items ranged from 0.840 to 0.980, and the separation indices ranged from 2.290 to 6.860. According to CTT, the cumulative variance contribution rate of the two factors was 52.472%; the model fit met requirements, and the convergent validity was reliable. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.931, and for the two dimensions, that was 0.865 and 0.955, respectively. Conclusion The revised Professional Grief Reaction Scale demonstrates good psychometric properties and can be used to assess professional grief among nursing interns.
关键词
职业悲伤 /
实习护生 /
信效度 /
项目反应理论 /
经典测量理论
Key words
professional grief /
nursing intern /
reliability and validity /
Item Response Theory /
Classical Test Theory
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] Robbins-Welty G, Nakatani M, Song YK, et al.Psychiatry resident physicians experience personal and professional grief, burnout and depression: results from a national survey[J]. Am J Hosp Palliat Care,2024,20:10499091241256106. DOI:10.1177/10499091241256106.
[2] Feng H, Shen Y, Li X.Bereavement coping strategies among healthcare professionals: a qualitative systematic review and Meta-synthesis[J]. Palliat Support Care,2024,14:1-13. DOI:10.1017/S1478951524001147.
[3] Shen Q, Liang J, Gao Y.Experience of undergraduate midwifery students faced with perinatal death in clinical practice: a qualitative study[J]. Nurse Educ Today, 2022, 108: 105159. DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105159.
[4] Zhou S, Wei L, Hua W, et al.A qualitative study of phenomenology of perspectives of student nurses: experience of death in clinical practice[J]. BMC Nurs, 2022, 21(1):74. DOI:10.1186/s12912-022-00846-w.
[5] 冯如芝, 李佳, 梁嘉仪, 等. 医学研究生职业悲伤量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 2023, 32(7): 647-652. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn371468-20220926-00571.
[6] 冯如芝, 李佳, 梁嘉仪, 等. 154名护理硕士研究生职业悲伤现状及影响因素分析[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(7): 5-10. DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2023.07.005.
[7] Lv Q, Zhang X, Wang Y, et al.Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the caregiver self-efficacy in contributing to patient self-care scale in China[J]. BMC Public Health, 2024, 24(1):1977. DOI:10.1186/s12889-024-19534-2.
[8] 刘国庆, 赵守盈. Rasch模型在李克特量表中的应用[J]. 贵州师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 30(1): 13-16. DOI:10.16614/j.cnki.issn1004-5570.2012.01.017.
[9] 孙振球, 徐勇勇. 医学统计学[M]. 4版. 北京:人民卫生出版社, 2014.
[10] 吴明隆. 结构方程模型:AMOS的操作与应用[M]. 2版.重庆:重庆大学出版社, 2010.
[11] COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments).COSMIN risk of Bias checklist [EB/OL]. (2018-07-01) [2024-12-07]. https://www.cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-RoB-checklist-V2-0-v17_rev3.pdf
[12] Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al.COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Qual Life Res,2018,27(5):1147-1157. DOI:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3.
[13] Buntragulpoontawee M, Khunachiva J, Euawongyarti P, et al.Investigating psychometric properties of the arm activity measure - Thai version (ArmA-TH) sub-scales using the Rasch model[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2021, 21(1): 46. DOI:10.1186/s12874-021-01238-5.
[14] Linacre JM.Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness[J]. J Appl Meas, 2002, 3(1): 85-106.
[15] Hallett N, Huber J, Sixsmith J, et al.Measuring the violence prevention climate: development and evaluation of the VPC-14[J]. Int Journal of Nurs Stud, 2018, 88: 97-103. DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.09.002.
[16] Durán-Sáenz I, Verdú-Soriano J, González-de la Torre H, et al. Psychometric validation of an instrument to assess undergraduate nursing student’s knowledge of the aetiology, prevention and treatment of venous leg ulcers[J]. Nurse Educ Today,2024,142:106340.DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106340.
[17] 沈甸, 徐佳敏. 基于Rasch模型分析测评工具质量的研究述评[J]. 中国考试, 2020(2):65-71. DOI:10.19360/j.cnki.11-3303/g4.2020.02.010.
[18] Colledani D, González Pizzio AP, Devita M, et al.Investigating the Functioning of Rating Scales with Rasch Models[J].Assessment,2024, 24:10731911241245792.DOI:10.1177/10731911241245792.
[19] 吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务:SPSS操作与应用[M]. 重庆:重庆大学出版社, 2010:166-188.
[20] 侯蕾, 章萍, 李静蕊, 等. 糖尿病足患者出院准备度量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2024, 59(19): 2333-2339. DOI:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2024.19.004.
[21] Goes M, Lopes M, Marôco J, et al.Psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF(PT) in a sample of elderly citizens[J]. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2021, 19(1):146. DOI:10.1186/s12955-021-01783-z.
[22] Chen C, Chow AYM, Tang S.Bereavement process of professional caregivers after deaths of their patients: a Meta-ethnographic synthesis of qualitative studies and an integrated model[J]. Int J Nurs Stud, 2018, 88:104-113. DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.08.010.
[23] 王飞, 汤靖琪, 孙小楠, 等. 初级卫生保健领域量表的设计与开发:实用步骤与统计方法[J].中国全科医学, 2024, 27(13): 1573-1583. DOI:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0819.
[24] Dong A, Zhang H, Kong L, et al.Chinese version of the Physical Resilience Scale (PRS): reliability and validity test based on Rasch analysis[J]. BMC Public Health, 2024, 24(1):2541. DOI:10.1186/s12889-024-19978-6.
[25] 苗康康, 陈勤. 儿童环境健康知识和技能问卷的汉化及信效度分析[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(2):17-22. DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2023.02.017.
[26] 简称苹, 张汉卿, 王丽英, 等. 本科护生自我调节学习策略量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2024, 31(18): 12-15. DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2024.18.012.
PDF(859 KB)
