Please wait a minute...
文章检索
预防医学  2026, Vol. 38 Issue (10): 1055-1059,1065    DOI: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2026.10.017
  妇幼保健 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
产前忧郁量表汉化及信度、效度检验
王炜1, 孔燕2, 李智慧2, 于桂玲2,3
1.青岛大学医学部护理学院,山东 青岛 266021;
2.青岛市妇女儿童医院,山东 青岛 266001;
3.北京大学人民医院青岛医院,山东 青岛 266000
Reliability and validity of Chinese version of the Maternal Blues Suryani Scale in the antepartum period
WANG Wei1, KONG Yan2, LI Zhihui2, YU Guiling2,3
1. School of Nursing, Health Science Center, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong 266021, China;
2. Qingdao Women and Children's Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong 266001, China;
3. Peking University People's Hospital, Qingdao, Qingdao, Shandong 266000, China
全文: PDF(912 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的 汉化产前忧郁量表(MBS-ante),并检验中文版MBS-ante信度、效度。方法 基于Brislin模型对MBS-ante进行翻译、回译、文化调试和预调查,形成中文版MBS-ante。于2025年1—4月,采用方便抽样方法抽取山东省3所三级甲等医院妊娠晚期孕妇进行调查。根据专家咨询结果评价中文版MBS-ante内容效度,以中文版爱丁堡产后抑郁量表(EPDS)作为校标工具评价校标关联效度,采用探索性和验证性因子分析评价结构效度;计算Cronbach's α、折半信度系数和重测信度系数评价信度。采用受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线评估中文版MBS-ante预测效能。结果 发放530份问卷,回收有效问卷512份,问卷有效率为96.60%。中文版MBS-ante共24个条目,分为母亲角色和任务、文化和社会支持2个维度。各条目水平的内容效度指数为0.833~1.000,量表平均水平的内容效度指数为0.972;中文版MBS-ante得分与中文版EPDS得分的相关系数为0.699(P<0.05)。探索性因子分析提取2个公因子,累计方差贡献率为62.97%;验证性因子分析结果显示,近似误差均方根、拟合优度指数、比较拟合指数、递增拟合指数、规范拟合指数和非规范拟合指数分别为0.072、0.829、0.973、0.973、0.954和0.971,模型拟合度良好。中文版MBS-ante总Cronbach's α为0.966,折半信度系数为0.856,重测信度系数为0.926;各维度Cronbach's α分别为0.933和0.980,折半信度系数分别为0.895和0.974,重测信度系数分别为0.942和0.885。ROC曲线下面积为0.913(95%CI:0.889~0.937),最佳临界值为49.5分时,约登指数最大为0.755,灵敏度为0.940,特异度为0.815。结论 中文版MBS-ante信度、效度良好,可作为我国妊娠晚期孕妇产前忧郁的评估工具。
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
孔燕
李智慧
于桂玲
关键词 : 产前忧郁量表,  孕妇,  信度,  效度    
Abstract:Objective To translate the Maternal Blues Suryani Scale in the antepartum period (MBS-ante) into Chinese and evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of MBS-ante. Methods Based on Brislin's model, MBS-ante was translated, back-translated, culturally adapted and pre-investigated to develop the Chinese version. From January to April 2025, pregnant women in the third trimester were recruited from three tertiary A hospitals in Shandong Province using convenience sampling to investigate. Content validity of the Chinese version of MBS-ante was evaluated based on expert ratings. Criterion-related validity was assessed using the Chinese version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) as the criterion. Structural validity was evaluated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability of the Chinese version of MBS-ante was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α, split-half reliability coefficient and test-retest reliability coefficient. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to evaluate the predictive performance of the Chinese version of MBS-ante. Results A total of 530 questionnaires were allocated, and 512 valid ones were recovered, with an effective recovery rate of 96.60%. The Chinese version of MBS-ante consisted of 24 items across two dimensions: maternal role and tasks, and culture and social support. The item-level content validity index ranged from 0.833 to 1.000, and the scale-level content validity index/average was 0.972. The correlation coefficient between the Chinese version of MBS-ante scores and the Chinese version of EPDS scores was 0.699 (P<0.05). Exploratory factor analysis extracted two common factors, accounting for 62.97% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good model fit. The root mean square error of approximation, goodness of fit index, comparative fit index; incremental fit index; normed fit index; Tucker-Lewis fit index were 0.072, 0.829, 0.973, 0.973, 0.954, and 0.971, respectively. The overall Cronbach's α of the Chinese version of MBS-ante was 0.966, the split-half reliability coefficient was 0.856, and the test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.926. The Cronbach's α of the two dimensions were 0.933 and 0.980, the split-half reliability coefficients were 0.895 and 0.974, and the test-retest reliability coefficients were 0.942 and 0.885, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.913 (95%CI: 0.889-0.937). At the optimal cutoff score of 49.5, the Youden index reached its maximum of 0.755, with a sensitivity of 0.940 and a specificity of 0.815. Conclusion The Chinese version of MBS-ante demonstrates good reliability and validity, and can be used to assess blues in the antepartum period among pregnant women in the third trimester in China.
Key words: Maternal Blues Suryani Scale in the antepartum period    pregnant woman    reliability    validity
收稿日期: 2026-04-20      修回日期: 2026-07-19      出版日期: 2026-10-10
中图分类号:  R714.6  
  R749.4  
基金资助:青岛市医疗卫生重点学科建设项目(2025—2027年)
作者简介: 王炜,硕士,临床护理专业
通信作者: 于桂玲,E-mail:hlbygl@163.com   
引用本文:   
王炜, 孔燕, 李智慧, 于桂玲. 产前忧郁量表汉化及信度、效度检验[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(10): 1055-1059,1065.
WANG Wei, KONG Yan, LI Zhihui, YU Guiling. Reliability and validity of Chinese version of the Maternal Blues Suryani Scale in the antepartum period. Preventive Medicine, 2026, 38(10): 1055-1059,1065.
链接本文:  
https://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2026.10.017      或      https://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/Y2026/V38/I10/1055
[1] 杨泽敏. 围生期性激素、甲状腺激素水平变化与孕妇负性情绪变化相关性分析[J].中国实用医药,2018,13(17):92-93.
[2] Andrade Miño M A,Vásquez Flores G N.Risk factors associated with maternity blues and postpartum depression in Ecuadorian women going through their immediate puerperium during 2021:a cross-sectional study[J].Rev Colomb De Psiquiatría Engl Ed,2025,54(3):486-492.
[3] Li H R,Ning W,Zhang N,et al.Association between maternal depression and neonatal outcomes:evidence from a survey of nationally representative longitudinal studies[J/OL].Front Public Health,2022,10[2026-07-19].http://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.893518.
[4] Roy U,Swain D.A prospective cohort study to assess the prevalence and risk factors of antepartum depression and its effect on maternal and fetal outcome[J/OL].Asian J Psychiatr,2024,91[2026-07-19].http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2023.103873.
[5] Manurung S,Setyowati S,Ginanjar A S,et al.The item development of Maternal Blues Suryani(MBS)Scale in the antepartum period through bonding attachment that predicting postpartum blues[J].Enfermería Clínica,2019,29:752-759.
[6] 王炜,李智慧,孔燕,等.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.
[7] 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.
[8] 吴瑕,翁丽君,柏艳萍,等.爱丁堡产后抑郁量表中文版在产妇中的适应性验证[J].中国心理卫生杂志,2026,40(3):257-262.
[9] 胡雁,王志稳.护理研究[M].5版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2017.
[10] 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.
[11] 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,2022.
[12] 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,2022.
[13] 李建华,黄惠根,李小梅,等.护理时间管理量表的汉化及其信度、效度检验[J].现代临床护理,2025,24(2):61-67.
[14] 季永志,陈汀芷,张冰洁,等.更年期感知量表汉化及信度、效度检验[J].预防医学,2025,37(7):722-726.
[15] 杨绪梅. 孕妇妊娠期身体不满影响因素的混合性研究[D].贵阳:贵州医科大学,2025:51-53.
[16] 何丽,于静,别荔,等.焦虑症状在孕妇社会支持与抑郁症状的关系中的中介作用[J].现代预防医学,2022,49(20):3712-3716,3729.
[17] Altman D G,Bland J M.Statistics notes:diagnostic tests 1:sensitivity and specificity[J/OL].BMJ,1994,308(6943)[2026-07-19].http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1552.
[18] 詹思延,叶冬青,谭红专.流行病学[M].8版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2017.
[19] Pop V J,Truijens S E,Spek V,et al.A new concept of maternity blues:is there a subgroup of women with rapid cycling mood symptoms?[J].J Affect Disord,2015,177:74-79.
[20] Rogers A M,Youssef G J,Teague S,et al.Association of maternal and paternal perinatal depression and anxiety with infant development:a longitudinal study[J].J Affect Disord,2023,338:278-288.
[1] 季永志, 陈汀芷, 张冰洁, 韩玲玉, 蒋恩社. 更年期感知量表汉化及信度、效度检验[J]. 预防医学, 2025, 37(7): 722-726.
[2] 徐伟, 林云, 朱国英, 宋和佳, 贾娟娟, 孙炀明. 一例孕妇ST2型单核细胞增生李斯特菌感染的流行病学调查[J]. 预防医学, 2025, 37(2): 189-191.
[3] 蔡锋成, 徐萌艳, 吴映瑛, 刘蓓, 祝莉. 孕妇睡眠障碍的影响因素研究[J]. 预防医学, 2024, 36(5): 440-443.
[4] 李庆伟, 陈雪梅, 王霄凯, 丁佳妮, 于方圆, 陈亦芳. 金山区孕妇被动吸烟调查[J]. 预防医学, 2024, 36(5): 457-460.
[5] 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.
[6] 马奕竹, 赵效国, 朱启英, 马依拉·买买提, 张环美, 苑晓琳, 李莉. 孕期膳食模式与妊娠糖尿病的关联研究[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(4): 286-290.
[7] 朱玲慧, 鲁英, 张露艺. 孕期PAHs暴露与胎盘线粒体拷贝数的关联研究[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(3): 248-252.
[8] 江南, 王双, 杨艳娜, 张海鹃, 吴建军. 通州区孕妇营养素补充剂认知和使用的影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2021, 33(2): 204-206,211.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 陈颖, 陈莉莉, 徐晓红, 黄珍珍, 娄增谦. 丽水市孕妇血清维生素水平分析[J]. 预防医学, 2020, 32(2): 184-186.
[12] 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.
[13] 郑丹丹, 应佳微, 丁忆玲, 盛少琴, 顾一鸣, 俞蕾媛, 姚锦敏. 杭州市孕晚期孕妇压力性尿失禁的影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2019, 31(10): 1054-1056,1060.
[14] 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.
[15] 李世杰, 赵桂让, 刘卫光, 付韬. 漯河市孕妇碘营养水平监测结果分析[J]. 预防医学, 2018, 30(2): 211-212.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed