戒毒内源力问卷的编制与验证
Development and Validation of the Endogenous Power Inventory for Drug Rehabilitation
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2018.811190, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 刘长江, 任心宇：南京师范大学心理学院，江苏 南京
关键词: 戒毒；意志力；内源力；效度；信度；Drug Rehabilitation； Volition； Endogenous Power； Validity； Reliability
摘要: 目的：探讨意志性戒除毒瘾的内在动力成分，编制戒毒内源力问卷(EPI-DR)并考察其效度和信度。方法：研究1通过访谈和讨论编制33个条目的测试问卷，并在江苏省戒毒所选取戒毒人员1814人进行测试。其中，1210人的数据用于条目分析和探索性因子分析，并由此形成正式版EPI-DR；604人的数据用于对正式版问卷进行验证性因子分析。研究2调查戒毒人员194人，施测正式版EPI-DR、一般效能量表(GSES)、犹豫不决问卷(IS)、控制感问卷(SCS)来考察效标效度，其中190人于3周后完成正式版EPI-DR的重测。结果：33个条目的题总相关均大于0.29。探索性因子分析确定了20个条目，提取效能、自主和掌控3个因子，解释总变异的62.18%；验证性因子分析结果表明，三因子结构是理想的模型(χ2/df = 2.53, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04)。效能因子得分与GSES得分相关为0.38，自主因子得分与IS得分相关为0.47，掌控因子得分与个人掌控得分相关0.44。全问卷及3个因子的Cronbach’s α系数分别为0.93、0.94、0.85和0.80；重测信度分别为0.75、0.71、0.66和0.65。结论：戒毒内源力由3个成分构成，戒毒内源力问卷的效度和信度达到心理测量学要求，可以用来测量戒毒人员意志力性戒毒的内在动力。
Abstract: Objective: To explore the endogenous drivers that prompt drug users’ rehabilitation, to develop an Endogenous Power Inventory for Drug Rehabilitation (EPI-DR), and to examine its validity and reliability. Method: In Study 1, a total of 33 items were developed through the method of interview and discussion, and then were included to form an initial version of the inventory. A total of 1814 drug users in drug treatment centers in Jiangsu Province were asked to fill out the inventory. Among the sample, 1210 data were used for item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and then the formal EPI-DR was developed. The rest 604 data were used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the formal EPI-DR. In Study 2, a second sample of 194 drug users who completed the formal EPI-DR, General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), Indecisiveness Scale (IS), and Sense of Control Scale (SCS) was used to test criteria-related validity. 191 among the second sample were asked to complete the formal EPI-DR three weeks later to test retest reliability. Results: The item-total correlation coefficients for the 33 items were over 0.29. EFA retained 20 items, and showed a three-factor structure of the endogenous power, including self-efficacy, self-determinant and self-mastery. 62.18% variation of the inventory was explained in total. CFA for the formal EPI-DR was ideal (χ2/df = 2.53, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.04). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for self-efficacy and GSES was 0.38, ICC for self-determinant and IS was 0.47, ICC for self-mastery and personal control was 0.44. The Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0.93, 0.94, 0.85 and 0.80 for the EPI-DR and its three subscales, the test-retest reliabilities with 3-week interval were 0.75, 0.71, 0.66 and 0.65. Conclusion: The endogenous power is composed of three components and the EPI-DR has a satisfactory level of both validity and reliability. The EPI-DR could be used to measure endogenous power of drug users.
文章引用：刘长江, 任心宇 (2018). 戒毒内源力问卷的编制与验证. 心理学进展, 8(11), 1642-1650. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2018.811190

参考文献

[1] 高鹏程, 杨梅, 刘雄文, 李科生, 李瑞, 肖水源(2014). 从吸毒到戒毒: 强制隔离戒毒人员吸戒毒心理过程的定性研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 22(5), 812-815.
[2] 江苏省太湖强制隔离戒毒所课题组, 张洪远, 曹群(2013). 江苏省太湖强制隔离戒毒所对100名回归人员的回访报告.犯罪与改造研究, No. 10, 33-37.
[3] 夏碧凤(2010). 犹豫不决者信息搜索行为的影响因素研究. 博士论文. 杭州: 浙江理工大学.
[4] 徐晓锋, 刘勇(2007). 评分者内部一致性的研究和应用. 心理科学, 30(5), 1175-1178.
[5] 中国国家禁毒委员会办公室(2017). 中国禁毒报告. 中国禁毒网. http://www.nncc626.com/2017-03/30/c_129521742.htm
[6] 周春燕(2013). 公正世界信念对不同社会阶层的个体与社会功能研究. 博士论文. 武汉: 华中师范大学.
[7] Douglas, C. C. (2005). The Functional Significance of Ac-tion-State Orientation in Athletic Performance. Loughborough: Loughborough University.
[8] Forstmeier, S., Drobetz, R., & Maercker, A. (2011). The Delay of Gratification Test for Adults: Validating a Behavioral Measure of Self-Motivation in a Sample of Older People. Motivation & Emotion, 35, 118-134.[CrossRef] 
[9] Frost, R. O., & Shows, D. L. (1993). The Nature and Measurement of Compulsive Indecisiveness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 683-692.[CrossRef] 
[10] Giordano, A. L., Clarke, P. B., & Furter, R. T. (2014). Predicting Substance Abuse Relapse: The Role of Social Interest and Social Bonding. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 35, 114-127.[CrossRef] 
[11] Karasaki, M., Fraser, S., Moore, D., & Dietze, P. (2013). The Place of Volition in Addiction: Differing Approaches and Their Implications for Policy and Service Provision. Drug and Alcohol Review, 32, 195-204.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Kazén, M., Kuhl, J., & Leicht, E.-M. (2015). When the Going Gets Tough …: Self-Motivation Is Associated with Invigoration and Fun. Psychological Research, 79, 1064-1076.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Kelly, J. F., & Greene, M. C. (2014). Where There’s a Will There’s a Way: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Interplay between Recovery Motivation and Self-Efficacy in Predicting Treatment Outcome. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28, 928-934.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Kendler, K. S., & Myers, J. (2015). Addiction Resistance: Definition, Validation and Association with Mastery. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 154, 236-242.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Kuhl, J. (2000). A Functional-Design Approach to Motivation and Self-Regulation: The Dynamics of Personality Systems Interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 111-169). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Inc.[CrossRef] 
[16] Kuhl, J., & Fuhrmann, A. (1998). Decomposing Self-Regulation and Self-Control: The Volitional Components Inventory. In J. Heckhausen, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and Self-Regulation across the Life Span (pp. 15-49). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.[CrossRef] 
[17] Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The Sense of Control as a Moderator of Social Class Differences in Health and Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763-773.[CrossRef] 
[18] Liu, Y., Liang, J., Zhao, C., & Zhou, W. (2010). Looking for a Solution for Drug Addiction in China: Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities in the Way of China’s New Drug Control Law. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21, 149-154.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Ryan, R. M., Plant, R. W., & O’Malley, S. (1995). Initial Motivations for Alcohol Treatment: Relations with Patient Characteristics, Treatment Involvement, and Dropout. Addictive Behaviors, 20, 279-297.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Sheeran, P., Maki, A., Montanaro, E., Avishai-Yitshak, A., Bryan, A., Klein, W. M., et al. (2016). The Impact of Changing Attitudes, Norms, and Self-Efficacy on Health-Related Intentions and Behavior: A Meta-Analysis. Health Psychology, 35, 1178-1188.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Zhang, J. X., & Schwarzer, R. (1995). Measuring Optimistic Self-Beliefs: A Chinese Adaptation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 38, 174-181.