老年人社会支持评价量表的汉化及信效度检验

林艳伟; 王婷仙; 倪进东

doi:10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2022.07.015

老年人社会支持评价量表的汉化及信效度检验

doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2022.07.015

林艳伟^{1, 3},
王婷仙²,
倪进东^{2, 3, ,}

1.
523808 东莞，广东医科大学人文与管理学院健康社会学系
2.
523808 东莞，广东医科大学公共卫生学院流行病与卫生统计学系
3.
523808 东莞，广东医科大学公共卫生与健康研究院

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金 71804029

广东省医学科研基金 C2018081

广东医科大学博士启动项目 B2019033

广东医科大学高水平学科建设工程项目 4SG22001G

详细信息

通讯作者:
倪进东，E-mail：nijd-gw@gdmu.edu.cn

中图分类号: R195.1
计量
- 文章访问数: 761
- HTML全文浏览量: 646
- PDF下载量: 141
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-10-13
- 修回日期: 2022-01-17
- 网络出版日期: 2022-07-19
- 刊出日期: 2022-07-10

Reliability and validity of Chinese version of the social support appraisals scale for older people

LIN Yan-wei^{1, 3},
WANG Ting-xian²,
NI Jin-dong^{2, 3
, ,}

1.
Department of Health Sociology, School of Humanities and Management, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523808, China
2.
Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523808, China
3.
Institute of Public Health and Wellness, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523808, China

Funds:

National Natural Science Foundation of China 71804029

Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province C2018081

Doctoral Research Start-up Foundation of Guangdong Medical University in 2019 B2019033

High-level Discipline Construction Project of Guangdong Medical University 4SG22001G

More Information

Corresponding author: NI Jin-dong, E-mail: nijd-gw@gdmu.edu.cn

摘要

摘要: 目的汉化老年人社会支持评价(the social support appraisals scale, SS-A)量表，并进行文化调适和信效度检验。方法遵循Brislin翻译模式进行量表的翻译、回译及文化调适。采用便利抽样对548名老年人进行一对一访谈调查，分析中文版量表的信度和效度。结果中文版量表共包含20个条目，3个维度。结构效度：探索性因子提取3个因子，可解释的总变异为59.706%；模型拟合指标为：χ²/υ=2.648、比较拟合指数(comparative fit idex, CFI)=0.907、增值适配指数(iciemental fit index, IFI)=0.908、拟合优度指数(goodness of fit index, GFI)=0.862、非标准适配指数(Tucker-Lewis index, TLI)=0.889、渐进残差均方和平方根(root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA)=0.078、残差均方和平方根(root mean square residual, RMR)=0.019。收敛效度：平均方差抽取量(average vriance extracted, AVE)=0.579。区分效度：低分组和高分组差异均有统计学意义(均有P＜0.05)。一致性信度：总量表克朗巴赫(Cronbach’s α)系数为0.927；3个维度的Cronbach’s α系数分别为0.884、0.858和0.697。重测信度：组内相关系数(intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC)为0.780，3个维度ICC值分别为0.869、0.655和0.505，且均有统计学意义(均有P < 0.001)。结论中文版老年人社会支持评价量表信效度良好，可用于中国老年人社会支持的评价。
- 社会支持 /
- 社会支持评价量表 /
- 信度 /
- 效度
Abstract: Objective To translate the English version of the social support appraisals scale (SS-A) developed by Vaux into Chinese, and to assess its reliability and validity. Methods Based on the Brislin translation model for translation and cross-cultural adjustment of the scale, 548 older people who met the inclusion criteria were conducted one-to-one interviews using convenience sampling, aiming to test the reliability and validity of the scale. Results The Chinese version of the scale contained twenty items and three dimensions. Construct validity: the exploratory factors extracts three factors, cumulative variance contribution rate was 59.706%. The confirmatory factor analysis fitting indexes: χ²/υ was 2.648, comparative fit idex (CFI) was 0.907, iciemental fit index (IFI) was 0.908, goodness of fit index (GFI) was 0.862, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) was 0.889, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.078 and root mean square residual (RMR) was 0.019. Convergent validity: average vriance extracted (AVE) was 0.579. Discrimination validity: there was a significant difference between the low group and the high group. Consistency reliability: the Cronbach's α coefficient of the total scale and three dimensions were 0.927, 0.884, 0.858, and 0.697 respectively. Test-retest reliability: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were 0.780, 0.869, 0.655 and 0.505, respectively (all P < 0.001). Conclusion The Chinese version of SS-A shows sufficient reliability and validity, which can be used to evaluate social support of older people in China.
- Social support /
- The social support appraisals scale /
- Reliability /
- Validity

HTML全文

图 1 中文版老年人社会支持评价量表的标准化估计值模型图(n=269)

Figure 1. The standardized estimate model diagram of the Chinese version of the social support appraisals scale (SS-A) (n=269)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 中文版老年人社会支持评价量表探索性因子分析结果(n=270)

Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis of the Chinese version of the social support appraisals scale for older people (n=270)

项目	因子1	因子2	因子3	项目	因子1	因子2	因子3
7、我家人很敬佩我	0.787	0.233	0.214	19、我和我的朋友们对彼此来说很重要	0.353	0.769	0.152
12、我很受尊敬	0.733	0.287	0.136	23、我和我的朋友们为彼此做了很多事	0.144	0.726	0.065
5、我很受欢迎	0.686	0.397	0.182	6、我能依靠我的朋友	0.486	0.636	-0.021
14、人们很崇拜我	0.633	0.286	-0.120	1、我的朋友们尊重我	0.287	0.564	0.337
9、我家人很爱我	0.627	0.058	0.558	10、我的朋友们不关心我的幸福	-0.050	0.530	0.356
4、家人很看重我	0.607	0.064	0.484	3、我对别人来说不重要	0.138	0.020	0.650
18、我的家人非常尊重我	0.485	0.281	0.246	21、如果我明天去世，几乎不会有人想念我	0.023	0.109	0.610
2、我的家人非常关心我	0.435	0.184	0.321	20、我感到有归属感	0.443	0.381	0.456
15、我跟我的朋友们关系铁	0.202	0.810	0.173	17、我觉得受别人重视	0.402	0.537	0.428
16、我的朋友们留意我	0.213	0.797	0.220	8、别人尊重我	0.343	0.396	0.423

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 中文版老年人社会支持评价量表区分效度分析结果(N=539)

Table 2. Discrimination validity analysis of the Chinese version of the social support appraisals scales for older people (N=539)

总量表及维度	高分组[M (P₂₅, P₇₅)]	低分组[M (P₂₅, P₇₅)]	Z值	P值
SS-A总量表	68.00(65.00, 73.00)	53.00(48.00, 55.00)	-14.788	< 0.001
SS-A家庭	28.00(26.00, 30.00)	21.00(20.00, 23.00)	-14.219	< 0.001
SS-A朋友	23.00(22.00, 25.00)	17.00(16.00, 19.00)	-14.514	< 0.001
SS-A其他	17.00(16.00, 19.00)	14.00(13.00, 15.00)	-13.782	< 0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 中文版老年人社会支持评价量表重测信度分析结果(n=98)

Table 3. Test-retest reliability analysis of the Chinese version of the social support appraisals scale for older people (n=98)

总量表及维度	ICC值	F值	P值
SS-A总量表	0.780	8.091	< 0.001
SS-A家庭	0.655	4.798	< 0.001
SS-A朋友	0.869	14.220	< 0.001
SS-A其他	0.505	3.307	< 0.001

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(20)

[1]	Gottlieb BH, Bergen AE. Social support concepts and measures[J]. J Psychosom Res, 2010, 69(5): 511-520. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.001.
[2]	Liu J, Wei W, Peng QY, et al. How does perceived health status affect depression in older adults? Roles of attitude toward aging and social support[J]. Clin Gerontol, 2021, 44(2): 169-180. DOI: 10.1080/07317115.2019.1655123.
[3]	Newsom JT, Schulz R. Social support as a mediator in the relation between functional status and quality of life in older adults[J]. Psychol Aging, 1996, 11(1): 34-44. DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.11.1.34.
[4]	Blixen CE, Kippes C. Depression, social support, and quality of life in older adults with osteoarthritis[J]. Image J Nurs Sch, 1999, 31(3): 221-226. DOI: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1999.tb00484.x.
[5]	Brooks AT, Andrade RE, Middleton KR, et al. Social support: a key variable for health promotion and chronic disease management in hispanic patients with rheumatic diseases[J]. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord, 2014, 7(7): 21-26. DOI: 10.4137/cmamd.s13849.
[6]	Borglin G, Jakobsson U, Edberg AK, et al. Older people in Sweden with various degrees of present quality of life: their health, social support, everyday activities and sense of coherence[J]. Health Soc Care Community, 2006, 14(2): 136-146. DOI: 10.1111/j/1365-2524.2006.00603.x.
[7]	Minahan J, Falzarano F, Yazdani N, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic and psychosocial outcomes across age through the stress and coping framework[J]. Gerontologist, 2021, 61(2): 228-239. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnaa205.
[8]	Vaux A, Phillips J, Holly L, et al. The social support appraisals (SS-A) scale: studies of reliability and validity[J]. Am J Commun Psychol, 1986, 14(2): 195-218. DOI: 10.1007/bf00911821.
[9]	Vaux A, Riedel S, Stewart D. Modes of social support: the social support behaviors (SS-B) scale[J]. Am J Commun Psychol, 1987, 15(2): 209-232. DOI: 10.1007/bf00919279.
[10]	Winningham RG, Pike NL. A cognitive intervention to enhance institutionalized older adults' social support networks and decrease loneliness[J]. Aging Ment Health, 2007, 11(6): 716-721. DOI: 10.1080/13607860701366228.
[11]	Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey[J]. Soc Sci Med, 1991, 32(6): 705-713. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-b.
[12]	Minahan J, Falzarano F, Yazdani N, et al. The COVID-19 pandemic and psychosocial outcomes across age through the stress and coping framework[J]. Gerontologist, 2021, 61(2): 228-239. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnaa205.
[13]	孙振球. 医学统计学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2010. Sun ZQ. Medical Statistics[M]. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House, 2010.
[14]	王志燕, 高欢玲, 张红梅, 等. Kihon老年衰弱筛查量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学杂志, 2021, 36(3): 10-13. DOI: 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2021.03.010. Wang ZY, Gao H, Zhang HM, et al. Translation and reliability and validity testing of the Chinese Version of Kihon Chec Kist (KCL)[J]. J Nurs Sci, 2021, 36(3): 10-13. DOI: 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2021.03.010.
[15]	吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务[M]. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010. Wu ML. Questionnaire statistical analysis practice[M]. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press, 2010.
[16]	Parady G, Frei A, Kowald M, et al. A comparative study of social interaction frequencies among social network members in five countries[J]. J Transp Geogr, 2021, 90: 102934. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102934.
[17]	Kim JH, Silverstein M. Are filial piety and ethnic community engagement associated with psychological wellbeing among older Chinese American immigrants? A cultural resource perspective[J]. Res Aging, 2021, 43(2): 63-73. DOI: 10.1177/0164027520937477.
[18]	Li Q, Jong MD, Karreman J. Cultural differences and the structure of user instructions: effects of Chinese and Western structuring principles on Chinese and Western users[J]. Technical Communication (Washington), 2021, 68(1): 37-55.
[19]	陈春, 张娜, 于立. 老年人社会交往层次与社区建成环境重构[J]. 城市发展研究, 2020, 225(4): 36-42, 48. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CSFY202004005.htm Chen C, Zhang N, Yu L. City, space and power: the discipline, path and trend of Urban political geographies[J]. Urban Development Studies, 2020, 225(4): 36-42, 48. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CSFY202004005.htm
[20]	郑日昌. 心理测量与测验[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2013. Zheng RC. Psychometrics and tests[M]. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2013.