一般人群样本中不适量表的效度。
Validity of the Malaise Inventory in general population samples.
作者信息
Rodgers B, Pickles A, Power C, Collishaw S, Maughan B
机构信息
NHMRC Psychiatric Epidemiology Research Centre, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
出版信息
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1999 Jun;34(6):333-41. doi: 10.1007/s001270050153.
BACKGROUND
The Malaise Inventory is a commonly used self-completion scale for assessing psychiatric morbidity. There is some evidence that it may represent two separate psychological and somatic subscales rather than a single underlying factor of distress. This paper provides further information on the factor structure of the Inventory and on the reliability and validity of the total scale and two sub-scales.
METHODS
Two general population samples completed the full Inventory: over 11,000 subjects from the National Child Development Study at ages 23 and 33, and 544 mothers of adolescents included in the Isle of Wight epidemiological surveys.
RESULTS
The internal consistency of the full 24-item scale and the 15-item psychological subscale were found to be acceptable, but the eight-item somatic sub-scale was less reliable. Factor analysis of all 24 items identified a first main general factor and a second more purely psychological factor. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that the validity of the scale held for men and women separately and for different socio-economic groups, by reference to external criteria covering current or recent psychiatric morbidity and service use, and that the psychological sub-scale had no greater validity than the full scale.
CONCLUSIONS
This study did not support the separate scoring of a somatic sub-scale of the Malaise Inventory. Use of the 15-item psychological sub-scale can be justified on the grounds of reduced time and cost for completion, with little loss of reliability or validity, but this approach would not significantly enhance the properties of the Inventory by comparison with the full 24-item scale. Inclusion of somatic items may be more problematic when the full scale is used to compare particular sub-populations with different propensities for physical morbidity, such as different age groups, and in these circumstances it would be a sensible precaution to utilise the 15-item psychological sub-scale.
背景
不适量表是一种常用的自评量表，用于评估精神疾病发病率。有证据表明，它可能代表两个独立的心理和躯体子量表，而非单一的潜在痛苦因素。本文提供了关于该量表的因子结构以及总量表和两个子量表的信度和效度的更多信息。
方法
两个普通人群样本完成了整个量表：来自全国儿童发展研究的11000多名23岁和33岁的受试者，以及怀特岛流行病学调查中纳入的544名青少年母亲。
结果
发现完整的24项量表和15项心理子量表的内部一致性可以接受，但8项躯体子量表的信度较低。对所有24项进行因子分析，确定了第一个主要的一般因子和第二个更纯粹的心理因子。接受者操作特征（ROC）分析表明，参照涵盖当前或近期精神疾病发病率和服务使用情况的外部标准，该量表对男性和女性以及不同社会经济群体的效度均成立，且心理子量表的效度并不比总量表更高。
结论
本研究不支持对不适量表的躯体子量表进行单独计分。基于完成时间和成本的降低，使用15项心理子量表是合理的，信度或效度几乎没有损失，但与完整的24项量表相比，这种方法不会显著提高该量表的特性。当使用完整量表比较具有不同身体发病倾向的特定亚人群（如不同年龄组）时，纳入躯体项目可能更成问题，在这些情况下，使用15项心理子量表是明智的预防措施。
Zotero 插件