期刊文献+

城市学龄前3~6岁儿童烧烫伤简易风险评估问卷的研制 被引量:4

Development of a Brief Risk Questionnaire for Burns of Urban Preschoolers Aged 3~6 Years
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的编制适用于我国城市学龄前3~6岁儿童烧烫伤简易风险评估问卷。方法复习和总结学龄前儿童烧烫伤流行病学调查结果、经典案例、风险评估问卷等文献,采用专题组座谈法、深入访谈法形成问卷初稿。通过对179名儿童预测试筛选问卷条目,通过分层整群抽样调查6所幼儿园468名儿童和医院50名烧烫伤儿童,对问卷进行信度和效度评价。采用百分位数法确定风险等级,采用分布法确定最小显著改变值。结果城市学龄前3~6岁儿童烧烫伤简易风险评估问卷由15个条目构成,分为“防护不当”、“照顾不当”、“器材使用不当”和“洗澡处置不当”四个维度。问卷的分半信度系数为0.721,Cronbach’sα系数为0.773。相关分析显示,每一条目与所属维度之间的相关系数介于0.493~0.879之间,与其他维度之间的相关系数介于0.033~0.475之间;各个维度的Cronbach’sα系数均大于与其他维度间的相关系数,各个维度与总分的相关系数均大于各个维度间的相关系数。验证性因子分析的χ/df、比较拟合指数CFI、近似误差均方根RMSEA、规范拟合指数NFI、增值拟合指数IFI分别为3.81、0.070、0.887、0.856、0.889。烧烫伤害组问卷得分显著高于非伤害组(P<0.05)。百分位数法确定风险评估得分≤21分存在低度风险,22~28分存在中度风险,28分存在高度风险。分布法确定最小显著变化值为5.10。结论城市学龄前3~6岁儿童烧烫伤简易风险评估问卷具有较好的信度和效度,可用于该年龄段城市儿童烧烫伤的风险评估。 Objective To develop a brief risk questionnaire for burns of urban preschoolers aged3~6years.Methods The initial questionnaire was shaped after reviewing and summarizing literature,meeting focus groups,interviewing parents,and consulting relevant experts.The pilot test with179children was done for item selection.468preschoolers were chosen by cluster random sampling from kindergartens and50preschoolers from hospitals to assess the reliability and validity of questionnaire.The evaluation criteria of total risk score of questionnaire was determined by the percentile method and the minimal significant change of questionnaire by the distribution-based method.Results The brief risk questionnaire for burns of preschoolers aged3~6years consists of15items of4domains:fault of protecting,fault of upbringing,misuse of some inflammables,and fault of bathing preschoolers.The split-half coefficients of questionnaire was0.721,Cronbach’sαcoefficients0.773.The correlation coefficients between items and their domains were in the range of0.493~0.879,whereas the correlation coefficients between items and the other domains0.033~0.475.The correlation coefficients between domain scores were smaller than the Cronbach’sαcoefficient.The correlation coefficients between the domain scores and total scores were greater than those in the domains.The result of confirmatory factor analysis showed:χ2/df,CFI,RMSEA,NFI,and IFI was3.81,0.070,0.887,0.856and0.889,respectively.The average scores of questionnaire were significant higher in burn group than in non-injury group.The evaluation criteria of the total risk score was determined by the percentile method and expressed as:≤21points,low risk;22~28points,moderate risk;and>28points,high risk.With distribution-based method,a minimal significant change of5.10was defined.Conclusion The brief risk questionnaire for burns of urban preschoolers aged3~6years is characterized with an acceptable reliability and validity thus can be applied to the assessment of the risk for urban preschoolers burns.
作者 朱松林 王琦琦 廖先珍 何琼 谭爱春 黄渊秀 高林 田丹平 李黎 邓欣 胡明 胡国清 ZHU Song-lin;WANG Qi-qi;LIAO Xian-zhen;HE Qiong;TAN Ai-chun;HUANG Yuan-xiu;GAO Lin;TIAN Dan-ping;LI Li;DENG Xin;HU Ming;HU Guo-qing(Hunan Cancer Hospital,Changsha 410013,China;Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Beijing 102206,China;School of Public Health, Central South University,Changsha 410078,China)
出处 《伤害医学(电子版)》 2015年第1期27-31,共5页 Injury Medicine(Electronic Edition)
关键词 学龄前儿童 烧烫伤 风险评估 信度 效度 Preschoolers Burns Risk assessment Reliability Validity
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献93

  • 1中国科学院"科技领导力研究"课题组,苗建明,霍国庆.领导力五力模型研究[J].领导科学,2006(9):20-23. 被引量:254
  • 2沈蕾.医疗服务质量评价方法研究综述[J].消费经济,2006,22(3):55-59. 被引量:30
  • 3黄晶,陈东方.1996—2005年山西省5岁以下儿童意外伤害死亡分析[J].山西医药杂志,2007,36(3):221-223. 被引量:11
  • 4黄志彪,高北陵,吴冬凌,盛璐,李映萍,李学武.简易精神症状自陈量表的信度和效度[J].中国临床心理学杂志,2007,15(3):227-229. 被引量:9
  • 5Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G H. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference [J]. Control Clin Trials, 1989, 10(4) : 407-415.
  • 6Jaeschke R, Guyatt G H, Keller J, et al. Interpreting changes in quality-of-life score in N of 1 randomized trials [ J ]. Control Clin Trials, 1991, 12(4 Suppl): 226S-2335.
  • 7Stratford P W, Binkley J M, Riddle D L, et al. Sensitivity to change of the Roland- Morris Back Pain Questionnaire : part 1 [J]. Phys Ther, 1998, 78(11): 1186-1196.
  • 8van Walraven C, Mahon J L, Moher D, et al. Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample- size calculation [ J ] . J Clin Epidemiol, 1999, 52(8) : 717-723.
  • 9van der Roer N, Ostelo R W, Bekkering G E, et al. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain [J]. Spine, 2006, 31(5): 578-582.
  • 10Beaton D E, Boers M, Wells G A. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference ( MCID ) : a literature review and directions for future research [ J ]. Curr Opin Rheumatol, 2002, 14(2) : 109-114.

共引文献52

同被引文献56

引证文献4

二级引证文献7

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部