|
摘要：
|
|
目的: 检验家庭教养方式问卷(FUSQ)在青少年正常样本和临床样本中的结构效度。方法: 2826名青少年正常样本与322例临床样本接受FUSQ测试,采用验证性因素分析验证两种三因素模型在不同样本中的结构效度。结果: 两种三因素模型的RMSEA、拟合指数和增值指数均达到可以接受的水平,三因素修正模型(χ2/df =1.97-10.87,RMSEA=0.055-0.067,MECVI=0.497-1.531,GFI=0.91-0.96,CFI=0.95-0.97)比三因素相关模型(χ2/df =4.62-29.84,RMSEA=0.098-0.114,MECVI=1.699-2.949,GFI=0.76-0.83,CFI=0.85-0.88)更理想; 父亲教养方式与母亲教养方式具有类似的结构效度; 正常样本数据拟合度(χ2/df =9.92-29.84,RMSEA=0.056-0.101,MECVI=0.497-1.785,GFI=0.82-0.96,CFI=0.87-0.97)优于临床样本(χ2/df =1.97-5.14,RMSEA=0.055-0.114,MECVI=1.334-2.949,GFI=0.76-0.93,CFI=0.85-0.97)。结论: 家庭教养方式问卷符合三因子模型,在正常样本和临床样本均具有较好的结构效度。
|
|
Objective: To examine the construct validity of Family Upbringing Style Questionnaire(FUSQ). Methods: FUSQ were administered to 2826 normal adolescents and 322 patients with mental disorder and juvenile delinquency, confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify the construct validity of three-factor model in different groups. Results: RMSEA, fit index and incremental index of two models reached acceptable levels, three-factor correction model(χ2/df =1.97- 10.87,RMSEA=0.055-0.067, MECVI=0.497-1.531, GFI=0.91-0.96, CFI=0.95-0.97) was more ideal than the three-factor related model(χ2/df =4.62-29.84, RMSEA=0.098-0.114, MECVI=1.699-2.949, GFI=0.76-0.83, CFI=0.85-0.88). The construct validity of fathers'upbringing style was similar to mothers. The data fitting of normal samples(χ2/df =9.92-29.84, RMSEA=0.056-0.101, MECVI=0.497-1.785, GFI=0.82-0.96, CFI=0.87-0.97) was superior to clinical samples(χ2/df =1.97-5.14, RMSEA=0.055-0.114, MECVI=1.334-2.949, GFI=0.76-0.93, CFI=0.85-0.97). Conclusion: Family Upbringing Style Questionnaire suits for the three-factor model and has good construct validity.
|
|
基金项目：
|
|
国家社会科学基金(13BSH062)
|
|
作者简介：
|
|
|
|
参考文献：
|
|
1 左占伟. 初中生父母教养方式的发展特点研究. 哈尔滨学院学报,2003,24(8): 21-22
2 赵汗青. 家庭教养方式研究的发展进程. 商丘师范学院学报,2006,22(6): 160-162
3 罗慧兰,王中会. 教养方式研究简述. 中华女子学院学报,2006,18(6): 71-74
4 Parker G, Tupling H, Brown LB. A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 1979, 52(1): 1-10
5 Perris C, Jacobsson L, Lindstrom H, et al. Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 1980, 61(2): 265-274
6 李彦章,许东民. 父母教养方式问卷的编制. 第三军医大学学报,2001,23(12): 1494-1495
7 石绍华,郑钢,唐洪,等. 育儿风格对儿童发展的影响. 心理学动态,2001,9(3): 221-226
8 程灶火,奚晓岚,陈媛媛,等. 家庭教养方式问卷的编制和信效度研究. 中国临床心理学杂志,2011,19(6): 711-714
9 张婷,刘新民,程灶火,等. 家庭教养方式问卷信效度再检验. 中国临床心理学杂志,2013,21(3): 420-421
10 Dean Keith Simonton. Psychology, science, and history: an intoduction to historiometry. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press, 1990. 1-29
11 岳冬梅,李鸣杲,金魁和,等. 父母教养方式: EMBU的初步修订及其在神经症患者的应用. 中国心理卫生杂志,1993,7(3): 97-101
12 Graham M, Helen AB, Leigh R. Depression in young adolescents investigations using 2 and 3 factor versions of the parental bonding instrument． The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 2004, 192(10): 650-657
13 Kendler KS. Parenting: a genetic-epidemiologic perspective. Am J Psychiatry, 1996, 153(1): 11-20
14 杨红君,楚艳民,刘利,等. 父母养育方式量表(PBI)在中国大学生中的初步修订. 中国临床心理学杂志,2009,17 (4): 434-436
15 高明,周世杰. 父母养育方式量表(PBI)在高职院校学生中的应用研究. 中国临床心理学杂志,2011,19(2): 198-199
16 蒋奖,许燕,蒋菁,等. 父母教养方式问卷(PBI)的信效度研究. 心理科学,2009,32(1): 193-196
|
|
服务与反馈：
|
|
【文章下载】【加入收藏】
|
|
|
|