Please wait a minute...
文章检索
预防医学  2024, Vol. 36 Issue (12): 1086-1091    DOI: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2024.12.018
  妇幼保健 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
产后忧郁量表的汉化及信度、效度检验
王炜1, 李智慧2, 孔燕2, 于桂玲2
1.青岛大学护理学院,山东 青岛 266021;
2.青岛市妇女儿童医院,山东 青岛 266034
Reliability and validity of Chinese version of Maternal Blue Scale
WANG Wei1, LI Zhihui2, KONG Yan2, YU Guiling2
1. School of Nursing, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong 266021, China;
2. Qingdao Women and Children's Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong 266034, China
全文: PDF(813 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的 汉化产后忧郁量表(MBS),并检验中文版MBS的信效度。方法 根据Brislin翻译模型对MBS进行翻译、回译、跨文化调适和预调查,形成中文版MBS。采用便利抽样法抽取山东省3所三甲综合医院产科中心产妇进行调查,检验中文版MBS的信效度。根据专家咨询的评分结果评价内容效度,以中文版爱丁堡产后抑郁量表(EPDS)作为效标评价中文版MBS的效标关联效度,采用探索性因子和验证性因子分析评价结构效度;计算Cronbach's α、折半信度评价信度。绘制受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线评估预测效能。结果 发放500份问卷,回收有效问卷479份,问卷有效率为95.80%。中文版MBS包括母婴交流、婴儿喂养、角色适应、母亲职责、家庭接纳和社会支持6个维度,共32个条目。各条目水平内容效度指数为0.900~1.000,量表平均水平的内容效度指数为0.990;中文版MBS得分与中文版EPDS得分的相关系数为0.675(P<0.05)。探索性因子分析提取6个公因子,累计方差贡献率为74.581%;验证性因子分析结果显示,近似误差均方根为0.014,拟合优度指数为0.896,比较拟合指数为0.996,递增拟合指数为0.996,规范拟合指数为0.913,非规范拟合指数为0.995,模型拟合度较好。总Cronbach's α为0.924,折半信度系数为0.765;各维度Cronbach's α为0.809~0.956,折半信度系数为0.807~0.966。ROC曲线下面积为0.909(95%CI:0.880~0.937),最佳临界值为75.5分时,约登指数最大为0.698,灵敏度为0.874,特异度为0.824。结论 中文版MBS信效度良好,可作为我国产妇产后忧郁的评估工具。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
王炜
李智慧
孔燕
于桂玲
关键词 产后忧郁量表信度效度跨文化调适    
AbstractObjective To translate the Maternal Blue Scale (MBS) into Chinese, and evaluate the reliability and validity. Methods The MBS was translated back-translated, culturally adapted and pre-tested according to the Brislin translation model to develop the Chinese version of MBS. Postpartum women from obstetrics centers in three tertiary general hospitals in Shandong Province were selected using convenience sampling method to assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of MBS. Content validity was evaluated based on expert ratings. Criterion-related validity was evaluated using the Chinese version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) as the criterion. Structural validity was evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α and split-half reliability. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to evaluate predictive validity. Results Totally 500 questionnaires were allocated, and 479 valid ones were recovered, with an effective recovery rate of 95.80%. The Chinese version of MBS consisted of 32 items across 6 dimensions: mother-infant communication, infant feeding, role adaptation, maternal responsibilities, family acceptance and social support. The item-level content validity index ranged from 0.900 to 1.000, and the scale-level content validity index/average was 0.990. The correlation coefficient between the Chinese version of MBS scores and the Chinese version of EPDS scores was 0.675 (P<0.05). Exploratory factor analysis extracted 6 common factors, with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 74.581%. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated good model fit, with a root mean square error of approximation of 0.014, a goodness of fit index of 0.896, a comparative fit index of 0.996, an incremental fit index of 0.996, a normed fit index of 0.913, and a Tucker-Lewis index of 0.995. The overall Cronbach's α was 0.924, and the split-half reliability was 0.765. The Cronbach's α of each dimension ranged from 0.809 to 0.956, and the split-half reliability ranged from 0.807 to 0.966. The area under the ROC curve was 0.909 (95%CI: 0.880-0.937). At the optimal cutoff score of 75.5, the Youden index reached its maximum of 0.698, with a sensitivity of 0.874 and a specificity of 0.824. Conclusion The Chinese version of MBS has good reliability and validity, and it is suitable to evaluate maternal blue among Chinese postpartum women.
Key wordsMaternal Blue Scale    reliability    validity    cross-cultural adaptation
收稿日期: 2024-08-05      修回日期: 2024-11-07      出版日期: 2024-12-01
中图分类号:  R714.6  
  R749.4  
基金资助:青岛市医药卫生科研指导项目(2022-WJZD152)
作者简介: 王炜,硕士研究生在读,护理专业
通信作者: 于桂玲,E-mail:hlbygl@163.com   
引用本文:   
王炜, 李智慧, 孔燕, 于桂玲. 产后忧郁量表的汉化及信度、效度检验[J]. 预防医学, 2024, 36(12): 1086-1091.
WANG Wei, LI Zhihui, KONG Yan, YU Guiling. Reliability and validity of Chinese version of Maternal Blue Scale. Preventive Medicine, 2024, 36(12): 1086-1091.
链接本文:  
http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2024.12.018      或      http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/Y2024/V36/I12/1086
[1] SCHREY-PETERSEN S,TAUSCHER A,DATHAN-STUMPF A,et al.Diseases and complications of the puerperium[J].Dtsch Arztebl Int,2021,118:436-446.
[2] BALARAM K,MARWAHA R.Postpartum blues[M]. Treasure Island(FL):StatPearls Publishing,2023.
[3] MIKUŠ M,ŠKEGRO B,SOKOL K V S,et al.Maternity blues among Croatian mothers-a single-center study[J].Psychiatr Danub,2021,33(3):342-346.
[4] REZAIE-KEIKHAIE K,ARBABSHASTAN M E,RAFIEMANESH H,et al.Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of the maternity blues in the postpartum period[J].J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs,2020,49(2):127-136.
[5] LANDMAN A,NGAMENI E G,DUBREUCQ M,et al.Postpartum blues:a predictor of postpartum depression,from the IGEDEPP Cohort[J].Eur Psychiatry,2024,67(1):1-9.
[6] CHIA M S,AHMAD HATIB N A B,CHEW E C S,et al.Association of postpartum depression with child growth and developmental outcomes:a community-based study[J/OL].Singapore Med J,2024[2024-11-07].https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38478737.DOI:10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2023-107.
[7] MANURUNG S,SETYOWATI S.Development and validation of the maternal blues scale through bonding attachments in predicting postpartum blues[J].Malays Fam Physician,2021,16(1):64-74.
[8] 王晓娇,夏海鸥.基于Brislin经典回译模型的新型翻译模型的构建及应用[J].护理学杂志,2016,31(7):61-63.
[9] LEE D T,YIP S K,CHIU H F,et al.Detecting postnatal depression in Chinese women:validation of the Chinese version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale[J].Br J Psychiatry,1998,172(5):433-437.
[10] 杨洁梅,杨巧红,李耀霞,等.妊娠期糖尿病孕妇生活质量量表的汉化和信效度检验[J].中华护理杂志,2021,56(5):795-800.
[11] 张学颖,尹雪梅,张晓翠,等.新生儿重症监护室父亲支持量表的汉化及信效度检验[J].中华护理杂志,2021,56(8):1275-1280.
[12] 张晨,周云仙.我国护理测量工具文献中内容效度指数应用误区分析[J].护理学杂志,2020,35(4):86-88,92.
[13] 王慧,於茗,吴玉霞,等.老年-八项问卷的汉化及在癌症患者中的信效度检验[J].护士进修杂志,2024,39(14):1500-1505.
[14] 刘源,刘红云.结构方程模型应用[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2020.
[15] 李萍萍,陈美芬,赵凤敏,等.糖尿病社区管理医生流感疫苗推荐工作满意度问卷信度效度评价[J].预防医学,2020,32(2):130-134.
[16] 杨柳,李智慧,孔燕,等.婴幼儿照顾者的口腔健康照护能力评估量表的编制及信效度检验[J].中华护理杂志,2024,59(10):1218-1225.
[17] 王慎玉,甘正凯,胡晓松,等.儿童生命质量测定量表用于流感儿童评价的信度和效度研究[J].预防医学,2020,32(5):471-474.
[18] TOSTO V,CECCOBELLI M,LUCARINI E,et al.Maternity blues:a narrative review[J].J Pers Med,2023,13(1):154-167.
[19] 高兴莲,郭莉.术中获得性压力性损伤危险因素评估量表的编制及信效度检验[J].中华护理杂志,2021,56(4):556-560.
[1] 王慎玉, 甘正凯, 胡晓松, 邵燕志, 陈颖萍, 梁贞贞, 邢博, 陈直平, 吕华坤. 儿童生命质量测定量表用于流感儿童评价的信度和效度研究[J]. 预防医学, 2020, 32(5): 471-474.
[2] 李萍萍, 陈美芬, 赵凤敏, 叶莉霞. 糖尿病社区管理医生流感疫苗推荐工作满意度问卷信度效度评价[J]. 预防医学, 2020, 32(2): 130-134.
[3] 张筱晗, 倪春辉. 数字健康素养量表在医学院学生调查中的信度和效度检验[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(4): 409-412,415.
[4] 汤路瀚, 周婉宁, 余鸽, 张媛媛, 徐方忠. 房树人测验人格评估计分系统的信度和效度研究[J]. 预防医学, 2018, 30(5): 450-454.
[5] 蒋丹丹, 周文哲, 郑森国, 陈燕燕. 学龄期儿童用眼行为调查问卷的信度和效度检验[J]. 预防医学, 2017, 29(3): 255-259.
[6] 魏澹宁, 汤军, 沈淑华, 包文婷. 公民中医养生保健素养调查问卷的信度和效度分析[J]. 预防医学, 2016, 28(9): 960-963.
[7] 沈志华, 汪永光, 王义强. Barratt冲动性量表在大学生心理健康网络调查中的信效度检验[J]. 预防医学, 2016, 28(4): 368-370,375.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed