慢性非传染性疾病风险感知评估量表的汉化及信效度检验
Reliability and Validity of Chinese Version of the Chronic Non-Communicable Diseases Risk Perception Assessment Scale
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2025.153792, PDF,   
作者: 李 志：青岛大学护理学院，山东 青岛；海军青岛特勤疗养中心，山东 青岛；刘 晔*：山东大学齐鲁医院监察审计部，山东 青岛；王 静, 袁 伟, 王 鹏, 许 媛：海军青岛特勤疗养中心，山东 青岛；徐晓冰：青岛大学护理学院，山东 青岛
关键词: 慢性病；风险感知；高风险人群；量表；汉化；信度；效度；Chronic Disease； Risk Perception； High-Risk Population； Scale； Localization； Reliability； Validity
摘要: 目的：汉化慢性非传染性疾病风险感知评估量表(NCD-PR)，并在慢性病高风险人群中进行信效度检验。方法：按照Brislin经典回译模型对源量表英文版NCD-PR进行翻译、回译、跨文化调适及预调查，形成中文版NCD-PR。采用便利抽样法，对某体检中心慢性病高风险人群进行电子问卷调查，检验其信效度。结果：收集有效问卷427例。中文版NCD-PR包括5个维度，共22个条目；CR值为5.971~15.494，均P < 0.001，高分组和低分组比较有较好的区分度。9名专家经2轮专家函询进行内容效度评价，量表I-CVI = 0.89~1，S-CVI/Ave = 0.98，调整后K*值为0.886~1。探索性因子分析共提取5个特征值 > 1的公因子，累计方差贡献率为73.229%；验证性因子分析结果显示模型适配良好。量表总Cronbach’s α系数为0.801，折半信度为0.893，重测信度为0.906。结论：中文版NCD-PR具有良好的信效度，可作为评价中国慢性病高风险人群慢性非传染性疾病风险感知水平的评估工具。
Abstract: Objective: To localize the Non-Communicable Diseases Perceived Risk (NCD-PR) and verify its reliability and validity among middle-aged and young high-risk populations for chronic diseases. Methods: Translate, back-translate, cross-cultural adjust, and pre-survey the English version of the source scale NCD-PR according to the classic Brislin back translation model to form the Chinese version of NCD-PR. Using the convenience sampling method, an electronic questionnaire survey was conducted on the high-risk population of chronic diseases among middle-aged and young people in a certain physical examination center to test its reliability and validity. Results: A total of 427 valid questionnaires were collected. The Chinese version of NCD-PR includes 5 dimensions with a total of 22 items; CR value ranges from 5.971 to 15.494, all P < 0.001, with good discriminatory ability between high and low score groups. Nine experts conducted two rounds of expert consultation to evaluate the content validity of the scale, with I-CVI ranging from 0.89 to 1, S-CVI/Ave at 0.98, and adjusted K* values from 0.886 to 1. The exploratory factor analysis extracted 5 public factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 73.229% of the total variance; the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model fits well. The total Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.801, the split-half reliability was 0.893, and the test-retest reliability was 0.906. Conclusion: The Chinese version of NCD-PR has good reliability and validity and can be used as an evaluation tool to assess the risk perception level of chronic non-communicable diseases among high-risk populations of chronic diseases in China.
文章引用：李志, 刘晔, 王静, 徐晓冰, 袁伟, 王鹏, 许媛. 慢性非传染性疾病风险感知评估量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 临床医学进展, 2025, 15(3): 1685-1694. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2025.153792

参考文献

[1] 熊智. 我国慢性病防治面临的挑战与对策[J]. 中国慢性病预防与控制, 2019, 27(9): 720-721.
[2] World Health Organization (2013) Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013-2020. World Health Organization.
[3] 卫健委. 解读《中国防治慢性病中长期规划(2017~2025年)》[EB/OL]. 2017-02-14. http://www.nhc.gov.cn/jkj/s3586/201702/34a1fff908274ef8b776b5a3fa4d364b.shtml, 2017-11-21
[4] 陈世平, 揭满, 王晓庄. 术语和俗语对疾病风险认知的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2017, 40(5): 1260-1265.
[5] Klasko-Foster, L.B., Ki-viniemi, M.T., Jandorf, L.H. and Erwin, D.O. (2019) Affective Components of Perceived Risk Mediate the Relation be-tween Cognitively-Based Perceived Risk and Colonoscopy Screening. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 43, 121-130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Gunn, C.M., Bokhour, B.G., Parker, V.A., et al. (2019) Under-standing Decision Making about Breast Cancer Prevention in Action: The Intersection of Perceived Risk, Perceived Con-trol, and Social Context: NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1. Medical Decision Making, 39, 217-227.
[7] Fernández, E.D.M., Martín, G.M. and Herrera, M.J. (2020) Family Witnessed Resuscitation and Invasive Procedures: Patient and Family Opinions. Nursing Ethics, 28, 645-655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] 林蓓蕾, 张振香, 梅永霞, 等. 国内外健康相关领域风险感知测评工具的研究进展[J]. 中国慢性病预防与控制, 2020, 28(5): 386-391.
[9] Mya, K.S., Zaw, K.K. and Mya, K.M. (2021) Developing and Validating a Questionnaire to Assess an Individual’s Perceived Risk of Four Major Non-Communicable Diseases in Myanmar. PLOS ONE, 16, e0234281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] 卫生部疾病预防控制局. 慢性病预防控制工作方案[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2011.
[11] Jones, P.S., Lee, J.W., Phillips, L.R., Zhang, X.E. and Jaceldo, K.B. (2001) An Ad-aptation of Brislin’s Translation Model for Cross-Cultural Research. Nursing Research, 50, 300-304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] 郭金玉, 李峥. 量表引进的过程及评价标准[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2012, 47(3): 283-285.
[13] 吕翠礼, 陈静. 膀胱癌造口病人益处发现水平与心理弹性、领悟社会支持的相关性及其影响因素分析[J]. 全科护理, 2023, 21(30): 4301-4305.
[14] 李小伟, 王向荣, 覃郅原. 骨质疏松症预防行为量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理研究, 2024, 38(8): 1343-1350.
[15] Lyu, J., Yin, L., Cheng, P., Li, B., Peng, S., Yang, C., et al. (2020) Reliability and Validity of the Mandarin Version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form (SCNS-SF34) and the Head and Neck Cancer-Specific Supportive Care Needs (SCNS-HNC) Module. BMC Health Services Research, 20, Article No. 956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] 苏阿芳, 王银洁, 王凤飞, 等. 非肥胖人群基线三酰甘油水平与急性胰腺炎发病风险关系的前瞻性队列研究[J]. 中国全科医学, 2022, 25(26): 3240-3245.
[17] 侯艳, 张云, 高蓉, 等. 恶性肿瘤患者疼痛认知量表的汉化和信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2021, 28(4): 62-66.
[18] 梁永春, 周海琴, 朱雪芬, 等. 肺移植特异性生活质量量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2022, 57(6): 688-695.
[19] 史静琤, 莫显昆, 孙振球. 量表编制中内容效度指数的应用[J]. 中南大学学报(医学版), 2012, 37(2): 49-52.
[20] Lynn, M.R. (1986) Determination and Quantification of Content Validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382-386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[21] Waltz, C.F., Strickland, O.L. and Lenz, E.R. (2005) Measurement in Nursing and Health Research. 3rd Edition, Springer, 157.
[22] 姚文英, 张莉, 谢安慰, 等. 住院患儿父母参与照护项目问卷研制及信效度分析[J]. 护理管理杂志, 2018, 18(1): 8-11.
[23] 朱瑞, 黄青梅, 吴傅蕾, 等. 成人患者报告结局测量信息系统简表的应用及研究进展[J]. 护士进修杂志, 2021, 36(4): 298-301.
[24] 孙卫领, 吴燕, 高键, 郭呈瑶. 工作-家庭行为角色冲突量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2023, 58(14): 1787-1793.
[25] 冯翎, 谭兰惠, 喻惠丹. 女性癌症幸存者自我倡权量表的汉化与信效度检验[J]. 护理研究, 2021, 35(3): 377-381.
[26] Sheeran, P., Harris, P.R. and Epton, T. (2014) Does Heightening Risk Appraisals Change People’s Intentions and Behavior? A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 511-543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

为你推荐