大一学生心理弹性的性别与就诊状态差异：基于效应量与事后检验的条目分析

Gender and Help-Seeking Status Differences in Psychological Resilience among First-Year College Students: An Item Analysis Based on Effect Sizes and Post-Hoc Tests

摘要: 比较不同性别及是否就诊的大一学生在Connor-Davidson心理弹性量表(RISC)总分、各因子及条目上的差异，通过事后检验和效应量评估量表的区分效度与条目功能，为心理弹性评估工具的本土化应用及精准干预提供依据。纳入大一学生3200名，分为非就诊男生(n = 736)、就诊男性(n = 736)、非就诊女生(n = 864)、就诊女性(n = 864)。采用RISC量表测量心理弹性(5因子25条目)。使用单因素方差分析和LSD事后检验比较四组差异，计算Cohen’s d效应量，并基于效应量评估条目的区分能力。四组在RISC总分及能力、情感管理、接受变化、控制因子上均存在极显著差异(p < 0.001)，心理弹性呈现“非就诊男生 > 非就诊女生 > 就诊男性 > 就诊女性”的梯度。非就诊男生与就诊女性的比较在所有有效因子上均达到小到中等效应(d = 0.33~0.50)，其中情感管理因子效应量最大(d = 0.50)。条目层面，“有力量”(d = 0.51)、“喜欢挑战”(d = 0.46)、“做决定”(d = 0.46)、“感到骄傲”(d = 0.39)区分度最高；而“按预感行事”(最大d = 0.18)、“适应变化”(最大d = 0.18)、“亲密安全关系”(最大d = 0.22)及精神影响因子两个条目(最大d = 0.22及0.08)区分能力极低或无效。接受变化因子内部出现分化：前2个条目无组间差异，后3个条目差异显著。就诊女性是心理弹性干预的优先靶人群。基于效应量分析，建议删除RISC中的“按预感行事”条目及整个精神影响因子，接受变化因子应分维度使用。高校应针对不同群体设计精准化干预方案。

Abstract: To compare the differences in total score, factor scores, and item scores of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (RISC) among first-year college students by gender and help-seeking status, and to evaluate the discriminative validity and item functioning of the scale using post-hoc tests and effect sizes, thereby informing localized application of resilience assessment tools and precision interventions. A total of 3200 first-year students were enrolled and divided into four groups: non-help-seeking males (n = 736), help-seeking males (n = 736), non-help-seeking females (n = 864), and help-seeking females (n = 864). The RISC (25 items, 5 factors) was administered. One-way ANOVA with LSD post-hoc tests was used to compare group differences, and Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated to evaluate item discrimination. Significant differences were found among the four groups in RISC total score and the factors of competence, emotion management, acceptance of change, and control (all p < 0.001). Resilience levels followed a gradient: non-help-seeking males > non-help-seeking females > help-seeking males > help-seeking females. Comparisons between non-help-seeking males and help-seeking females yielded small-to-medium effect sizes (d = 0.33~0.50), with the largest effect for emotion management (d = 0.50). At the item level, “feeling powerful” (d = 0.51), “likes challenges” (d = 0.46), “making decisions” (d = 0.46), and “feeling proud” (d = 0.39) showed the highest discrimination. Conversely, “acting on gut feelings” (max d = 0.18), “adapting to change” (max d = 0.18), “close secure relationships” (max d = 0.22), and the two items of the spiritual influence factor (max d = 0.22 and 0.08) demonstrated very low or no discriminative ability. The acceptance of the change factor showed internal differentiation: the first two items did not differ between groups, while the last three items did. Help-seeking females are the priority target for resilience interventions. Based on effect size analyses, we recommend deleting the “acting on gut feelings” item and the entire spiritual influence factor from the RISC, and using sub-dimensions for acceptance of change. Universities should design tailored resilience promotion programs.