van Oostrom M A, Tijhuis M A, de Haes J C, Tempelaar R, Kromhout D
Department of Chronic Disease and Environmental Epidemiology (CCM), National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995 Oct;49(5):518-24. doi: 10.1136/jech.49.5.518.
This study aimed to examine in a general population the psychometric qualities of an instrument designed to measure positive and negative social experiences that had been developed in a clinical setting.
The Netherlands monitoring project on cardiovascular disease risk factors, a large scale population based study (comprising 36,588 men and women aged 20 to 59 years) carried out in three Dutch towns (Amsterdam, Doetinchem, and Maastricht) offered the possibility of testing the strength of this instrument cross sectionally.
The social experiences checklist (SEC) which resulted from a research project on the quality of life of cancer patients was used. The independence of positive and negative experiences was confirmed. The reliability of both the positive and negative experiences dimension was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82 and 0.72 respectively). In accordance with the results of a study on cancer patients, the theoretically derived four dimensions in the experience of social support did not seem to be independent. The validity of the SEC was confirmed by Pearson correlations with neuroticism and coping styles. Neuroticism seemed to be negatively correlated with positive social experiences and was positively correlated with negative social experiences. The coping style of seeking information and direct action was positively correlated with positive social experiences. Coping by withdrawal was negatively correlated with negative social experiences. Women and highly educated people seemed to have more positive and fewer negative social experiences than men and people with less education. Younger people had more positive social experiences than older people. The oldest group in the study, those aged 50 to 59, reported fewer negative social experiences than any other age group.
Similar results were found in a study of cancer patients. This underlines the usefulness of the instrument not only for cancer patients but also in survey research in a general population.
本研究旨在检验一种在临床环境中开发的、用于测量积极和消极社会经历的工具在普通人群中的心理测量学特性。
荷兰心血管疾病风险因素监测项目是一项基于大规模人群的研究（包括36588名年龄在20至59岁之间的男性和女性），在荷兰的三个城镇（阿姆斯特丹、多廷赫姆和马斯特里赫特）开展，提供了对该工具进行横断面测试的可能性。
使用了一项关于癌症患者生活质量研究项目得出的社会经历清单（SEC）。证实了积极和消极经历的独立性。积极和消极经历维度的信度都很好（克朗巴哈系数分别为0.82和0.72）。与一项关于癌症患者的研究结果一致，社会支持体验中理论上推导的四个维度似乎并非相互独立。SEC的效度通过与神经质和应对方式的皮尔逊相关性得到证实。神经质似乎与积极社会经历呈负相关，与消极社会经历呈正相关。寻求信息和直接行动的应对方式与积极社会经历呈正相关。退缩应对与消极社会经历呈负相关。女性和高学历人群似乎比男性和低学历人群有更多的积极社会经历和更少的消极社会经历。年轻人比老年人有更多的积极社会经历。研究中年龄最大的组，即50至59岁的人群，报告的消极社会经历比其他任何年龄组都少。
在对癌症患者的研究中也发现了类似的结果。这突出了该工具不仅对癌症患者有用，而且在普通人群的调查研究中也有用。
