大一学生心理弹性分析

Analysis of Psychological Resilience in Freshman Students

摘要: 分析大一学生心理弹性数据，为大一学生心理弹性提升工作提供数据基础。调查数据收集于2025年1月到2026年3月；就诊组为于西南康复医院就诊的大一学生患病群体852例；诊断标准为美国精神障碍诊断与统计手册第五版。根据性别、年龄和家庭经济地位与就诊组配对，随机抽取成都市十所大学大一学生852名组成非就诊组；数据收集包括一般情况问卷和心理弹性量表(RISC)；组间差异采用方差分析进行检验。RISC总分、能力因子、情感管理、接受变化和控制因子均是非就诊男生得分高于非就诊女生，就诊男性高于就诊女性。在精神影响因子中，非就诊女生得分高于非就诊男生，就诊男性高于就诊女性。在能力因子条目中，尽最大努力和达到目标得分在非就诊女生得分高于非就诊男生；尽最大努力得分就诊女性高于就诊男性；达到目标得分就诊男性高于就诊女性。强有力的人和喜欢挑战得分为非就诊男生最高，就诊男性其次，非就诊女生第三，最后为就诊女性。在情感管理条目中，做决定和按预感行事得分为非就诊男生高于就诊男性，非就诊女生高于就诊女生。在接受变化条目中，能应付任何事、有信心面对挑战、从艰难或疾病很快恢复得分均是非就诊男生高于非就诊女生，就诊男性高于就诊女性。在控制因子条目中，有强烈的目的感得分非就诊男生高于就诊男性，非就诊女生高于就诊女性。精神影响因子每个条目得分差别在组间均没有统计学意义(P > 0.05)。大一学生心理弹性呈“非就诊男生，非就诊女生，就诊男性，就诊女性”梯度分布。就诊女性心理弹性全面受损，是干预的优先靶人群。接受变化因子存在维度分化，精神影响因子在中国文化背景下效度不佳，建议采用四因子结构。临床干预应重点关注就诊女性，认知重构、情绪调节技能训练、恢复速度提升及目的感重建都是值得尝试的心理弹性提升方法。

Abstract: To analyze Psychological Resilience Data of First-Year College Students to provide a data foundation for enhancing their psychological resilience. Survey data were collected from January 2025 to March 2026. The clinical group consisted of 852 first-year college students diagnosed with mental disorders at Southwest Rehabilitation Hospital, based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). A non-clinical group of 852 first-year college students was randomly selected from ten universities in Chengdu, matched with the clinical group by gender, age, and family economic status. Data collection included a general questionnaire and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (RISC). Group differences were tested using analysis of variance (ANOVA). For the total RISC score and the factors of ability, emotion management, acceptance of change, and control, scores were higher in non-clinical males than in non-clinical females, and higher in clinical males than in clinical females. For the spiritual influence factor, non-clinical females scored higher than non-clinical males, while clinical males scored higher than clinical females. Among the ability factor items, scores for “giving best effort” and “achieving goals” were higher in non-clinical females than in non-clinical males. For “giving best effort”, clinical females scored higher than clinical males; for “achieving goals”, clinical males scored higher than clinical females. Scores for “being a strong person” and “liking challenges” were highest in non-clinical males, followed by clinical males, then non-clinical females, and lowest in clinical females. For the emotion management items, scores for “making decisions” and “acting on intuition” were higher in non-clinical males than in clinical males, and higher in non-clinical females than in clinical females. For the acceptance of change items, scores for “being able to handle anything”, “confidence in facing challenges”, and “quick recovery from hardship or illness” were higher in non-clinical males than in non-clinical females, and higher in clinical males than in clinical females. For the control factor item “having a strong sense of purpose”, scores were higher in non-clinical males than in clinical males, and higher in non-clinical females than in clinical females. Differences in each item of the spiritual influence factor were not statistically significant between groups (P > 0.05). The psychological resilience of first-year college students showed a gradient distribution: non-clinical males, non-clinical females, clinical males, clinical females. Clinical females exhibited the most comprehensive impairment in psychological resilience and are the priority target population for intervention. The acceptance of change factor showed dimensional differentiation, while the spiritual influence factor demonstrated poor validity in the Chinese cultural context, suggesting a four-factor structure. Clinical interventions should focus on clinical females, and approaches such as cognitive restructuring, emotion regulation skills training, recovery speed enhancement, and purpose reconstruction are promising methods for improving psychological resilience.