Suppr超能文献

轻度创伤性脑损伤患者简明应对方式量表的因子结构。

Factor structure of the brief COPE in people with mild traumatic brain injury.

机构信息

Rehabilitation Teaching and Research Unit, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.

出版信息

J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2011 Nov-Dec;26(6):468-77. doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3181fc5e1e.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the factor structure and internal consistency of the Brief COPE, adapted for use with adults with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Hospital based emergency department and concussion clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 147 adults meeting diagnostic criteria for MTBI.

MAIN MEASURE

Brief COPE.

ANALYSES

The previously reported 9-factor structure of the Brief COPE was tested by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and then exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The Cronbach α was computed for both the original subscales and those derived from EFA.

RESULTS

The CFA provided a less than satisfactory fit for the 9-factor model. While the EFA solution was very similar to that of the original scale, the reliability of some derived subscales was low. Further analyses identified improved internal consistency with a 3-factor model reflecting approach, avoidance, and help-seeking coping styles.

CONCLUSIONS

The Brief COPE has satisfactory psychometric properties for use in MTBI but may be more reliably and meaningfully interpreted using 3 dimensions/subscales rather than 9.

摘要

目的

调查适应于轻度创伤性脑损伤(MTBI)成年人使用的简短应对方式问卷(Brief COPE)的结构因素和内部一致性。

设计

前瞻性队列研究。

地点

医院急诊部和脑震荡诊所。

参与者

符合 MTBI 诊断标准的 147 名成年人。

主要测量指标

简短应对方式问卷。

分析

采用验证性因子分析(CFA)和探索性因子分析(EFA)对先前报道的Brief COPE 的 9 因素结构进行了检验。计算了原始子量表和 EFA 得出的子量表的克朗巴赫 α。

结果

CFA 对 9 因素模型的拟合度较差。虽然 EFA 解决方案与原始量表非常相似,但一些衍生子量表的可靠性较低。进一步的分析确定了一种具有更好内部一致性的 3 因素模型,反映了应对方式中的接近、回避和寻求帮助。

结论

Brief COPE 具有令人满意的心理计量学特性,可用于 MTBI,但使用 3 个维度/子量表而不是 9 个维度/子量表可能更可靠和有意义。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验