中国临床心理学杂志

PI-WSUR量表在中国大学生人群中的修订

作者：庞礴¹ 朱春燕¹ 汪凯¹ 2 张蕾¹ 杨平¹ 马季¹

单位：1. 安徽医科大学医学心理学系安徽合肥 230032
2. 安徽医科大学第一附属医院神经内科安徽合肥 230032

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2009,17(2):131-133

摘要：

目的：本研究旨在将帕多瓦量表-华盛顿州立大学修订版(Padua Inventory-Washington State University Revision，PI-WSUR)引进中国，考察PI-WSUR在中国非临床样本中的效度和信度。方法：随机抽取673名大学生完成各项量表，并对其中的153名大学生进行了重测。结果：效度检验：检验结构效度获得个5因素，与原量表一致，各因素都具有良好的区分效度(P＜0.05；P＜0.001)和校标效度(P＜0.01)；信度检验：PI-WSUR总分的α系数为0.90，各因素α系数分别为0.77，0.80，0.87，0.80，0.74，重测信度分别为0.59，0.53，0.61，0.74，0.60。本研究在PI-WSUR总分上未发现性别差异，但是女性被试在"污染/清洗强迫"的得分显著高于男性(P＜0.000)；男性被试在"伤害他人/自己的强迫冲动"的得分显著高于女性(P＜0.01)。结论：PI-WSUR具备合格的效度和信度。

Objective: To examine the validity and reliability of the Padua Inventory-Washington State University Revi-sion(PI-WSUR) used in Chinese college students. Methods: The translated version of the PI-WSUR, was used in 673 college students to examine its reliability and factorial structure by principal component analysis, internal consistency and test-retest. 153 college students were administered the PI-WSUR twice for test-retest study to further investigate its differentiation validity and its relationship with the obsessive-compulsive subscale of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R OC). Results: Five factors were extracted from the Inventory and all of them had significant differentiation va-lidity (P<0.05;P<0.001) and correlations with SCL-90-R-OC (P<0.01). The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were 0.90 and 0.67. Factor 1(P<0.000) and Factor 5(P<0.001) were significantly different between men and women. Con-clusion: The result of the study shows good validity for the PI-WSUR, and confirmed its internal consistency and testretest reliability reported by previous studies.

基金项目：

国家自然科学基金(030670706);安徽省教育厅自然科学基金(KJ2008B305);安徽医科大学校级科研基金(2007kj27)

作者简介：

参考文献：

[1] Sanavio E. Obsessions and compulsions: The Padua Inventory. Behavior Research and Therapy,1988,26:169-177
[2] Freeston MH, Ladouceur R, Rhjaume LH, et al. Self-report of obsessions and worry. Behavior Research and Therapy,1994,32(1):29-36
[3] Burns GL, Keortge SG, Formea GM, et al. Revision of the Padua Inventory of obsessive compulsive disorder symptoms: Distinctions between worry, obsessions, and compulsions. Behavior Research and Therapy,1996,34(2):163-173
[4] Goodarzi MA, Firoozabadi A. Reliability and validity of the Padua Inventory in an Iranian population. Behavior Re search and Therapy,2005,43:43-54
[5] American Psychiarric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington DC: Author,1994
[6] Wells A, Morrison AP. Qualitative dimensions of normal worry and normal obsesions: A comparative study. Behavior Research and Therapy,1994,32:867-870
[7] Wells A, Papageorgiou C. Relationships between worry, obsessive-compulsive symptoms and meta-cognitive beliefs. Behavior Research and Therapy,1998,36:899-913
[8] Jonsdottir SD, Smari J. Measuring obsessions without worry: Convergent and discriminant validity of the revised Padua Inventory in an Icelandic students populations. Scandina vian Journal of Behavior Therapy,2000,29:49-56
[9] 钟杰，秦漠，蔡文菁. Padua 量表在中国大学生人群中的修订.中国临床心理学杂志，2006，14（1）：1-4
[10] Ember CR, Ember M. Cross-culture research methods. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press,2001.1-164
[11] 汪向东，汪希林，马弘.心理卫生评定量表手册.增订版.北京：中国心理卫生杂志社，1999.31-35，122-124
[12] Sternberger LG, Burns GL. Obsessions and compulsions: Psychometric properties of the Padua Inventory with an American college population. Behavior Research and Therapy,1990,30(6):631-637
[13] Van Oppen P. Obsessions and compulsions: Dimensional structure, reliability, convergent and divergent validity of the Padua Inventory. Behavior Research and Therapy,1992,30:631-637
[14] Gibbs NA. Nonclinical populations in research on obsessive compulsive disorder: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review,1996,168(8):729-773

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】