Suppr超能文献

神经性厌食症利弊中文版量表(P-CAN-C)的心理测量学特性:一项针对神经性厌食症患者的效度研究

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the pros and cons of anorexia nervosa (P-CAN-C) scale: a validation study in patients with anorexia nervosa.

作者信息

Han Xu, Cheung Mei-Chun, Li Xueni, Serpell Lucy

机构信息

Department of Social Work, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Peking University Sixth Hospital, Peking University Institute of Mental Health, NHC Key Laboratory of Mental Health (Peking University), National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders (Peking University Sixth Hospital), Beijing, China.

出版信息

J Eat Disord. 2025 Jun 16;13(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s40337-025-01314-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Individuals with anorexia nervosa (AN) often face significant challenges in maintaining motivation for recovery. Understanding the perceived pros and cons associated with the disorder is crucial for promoting recovery. This study aimed to translate, adapt, and validate the Pros and Cons of Anorexia Nervosa Scale (P-CAN) for use with Chinese adults with AN, thereby facilitating a clearer understanding of the motivations and barriers encountered by these patients.

METHODS

This study employed a cross-sectional survey design to collect data from 207 Chinese adults with AN (M25.58 and SD 6.011). Content validity was assessed by a panel of professionals. Reliability testing included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, item-total correlation, and correlation analysis between subscales. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) assessed the factor structure, focusing on two components (Pro and Con-AN) and ten subscales-Safe/Structured, Appearance, Fertility/Sexuality, Special, Fitness, Communicate Emotions/Distress for Pro-AN and Trapped, Guilt, Hatred, Stifled for Con-AN as per the original scale. Criterion validity was evaluated using the eating pathology tested by Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and Body Mass Index (BMI).

RESULTS

The content validity of the overall scale was 0.86. The Pro-AN and Con-AN subscales exhibited strong internal consistency (α = 0.84 and 0.82) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.912 and 0.704, p < 0.001). Item-Total Correlations exceeded 0.3 for all items except item 2, and there was no significant correlation between the Pro-AN and Con-AN subscales. The PCA results indicated that the Chinese P-CAN retained two components, which are consistent with the original scale. Differences emerged in more granular dimensions that may not be appropriate within the Chinese context. Significant correlations were found between the Pro-AN (r = 0.279, p < 0.001) and Con-AN (r = 0.240, p < 0.001) subscales and eating pathology and Con-AN was significantly correlated with BMI (r = -0.214, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The P-CAN has shown promising psychometric properties among Chinese patients with AN. In terms of dimensionality, the Chinese context aligns closely with the original scale's binary division into Pro-AN and Con-AN. However, the further differentiation into ten dimensions, may not be culturally appropriate for the Chinese context.

摘要

背景

神经性厌食症(AN)患者在维持康复动力方面常常面临重大挑战。了解与该疾病相关的感知到的利弊对于促进康复至关重要。本研究旨在翻译、改编并验证神经性厌食症利弊量表(P-CAN),以供患有AN的中国成年人使用,从而更清晰地了解这些患者所遇到的动机和障碍。

方法

本研究采用横断面调查设计,从207名患有AN的中国成年人(M = 25.58,SD = 6.011)中收集数据。内容效度由专业人员小组进行评估。信度测试包括内部一致性、重测信度、项目与总分相关性以及分量表之间的相关性分析。主成分分析(PCA)评估因子结构,重点关注两个成分(支持神经性厌食症和反对神经性厌食症)以及十个分量表——支持神经性厌食症的安全/结构化、外貌、生育能力/性功能、特殊、健康、表达情感/痛苦,以及反对神经性厌食症的被困、内疚、仇恨、压抑,均按照原始量表。效标效度使用饮食失调检查问卷(EDE-Q)测试的饮食病理学和体重指数(BMI)进行评估。

结果

整个量表的内容效度为0.86。支持神经性厌食症和反对神经性厌食症分量表表现出很强的内部一致性(α = 0.84和0.82)和重测信度(r = 0.912和0.704,p < 0.001)。除项目2外,所有项目的项目与总分相关性均超过0.3,支持神经性厌食症和反对神经性厌食症分量表之间无显著相关性。主成分分析结果表明,中文版P-CAN保留了两个成分,与原始量表一致。在更细化的维度上出现了差异,这些差异在中国背景下可能不合适。支持神经性厌食症分量表(r = 0.279,p < 0.001)和反对神经性厌食症分量表(r = 0.240,p < 0.001)与饮食病理学之间存在显著相关性,反对神经性厌食症分量表与BMI显著相关(r = -0.214,p < 0.01)。

结论

P-CAN在中国神经性厌食症患者中显示出有前景的心理测量特性。在维度方面,中国背景与原始量表将其分为支持神经性厌食症和反对神经性厌食症的二元划分紧密一致。然而,进一步细分为十个维度,在中国背景下可能在文化上不合适。

相似文献

7
Clinical rating scales for assessing pain in newborn infants.评估新生儿疼痛的临床评定量表。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Apr 14;4(4):MR000064. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000064.pub2.

本文引用的文献

10
Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity.评价用于估计内容效度的方法。
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019 Feb;15(2):214-221. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066. Epub 2018 Mar 27.

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