| 引用本文： |
-
苏娜,王璐,史靖宇,等.精神病前驱期问卷(PQ-16)评估大学生精神病风险的信效度检验[J].同济大学学报（医学版）,2015,36(3):123-127. [点击复制]
- SU Na,WANG Lu,SHI Jing-yu,et al.Reliability and validity of Prodromal Questionnaire(PQ-16) in assessing psychosis-risk of college students[J].同济大学学报（医学版）,2015,36(3):123-127. [点击复制]
|
|
| 摘要: |
| 目的 测试精神病前驱期问卷16项版本(PQ-16)中文版识别大学生精神病风险的信度和效度。方法对2496名在校大学生进行PQ-16调查,分别对条目分和痛苦分两种模式进行信效度的检验,并对其中痛苦分大于6分的受试者进行了精神病风险综合征结构式访谈(SIPS)。结果 PQ-16的条目分和痛苦分的Cronbach系数分别为0.751和0.784,Guttman折半系数分别为0.721和0.761。通过探索性因子分析有四个主成分的特征值大于1,累计方差贡献率为41.7%,且各因子的载荷都在0.404~0.639之间。各条目分与总分的Pearson相关系数在0.355~0.548之间,痛苦分与总分的相关系数在0.385~0.597之间(P＜0.01)。痛苦分大于6分的受试者通过SIPS访谈显示31例为阳性,599例为阴性,且SIPS阳性者的痛苦分高于阴性者(P＜0.05)。ROC曲线显示,PQ-16的痛苦分的曲线下面积大于条目分,且在痛苦分为10分时可以获得最好的敏感度(68%)和特异度(73%)。结论评估大学生精神病风险时精神病前驱期问卷16项版本(PQ-16)中文版有良好的信度和效度,采用痛苦分的评价模式可以更好的筛查。 |
| 关键词: 精神病风险 大学生 信度 效度 |
| DOI：10.16118/j.1008-0392.2015.03.027 |
| 投稿时间：2015-03-20 |
| 基金项目:上海市浦江人才计划(14PJ1408500) |
|
| Reliability and validity of Prodromal Questionnaire(PQ-16) in assessing psychosis-risk of college students |
| SU Na,WANG Lu,SHI Jing-yu,ZHAO Xu-dong |
| (Medical College, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China;Medical College, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China;Dept.of Psychosomatic Medicine, East Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 200120, China) |
| Abstract: |
| Objective To test the reliability and validity of the 16-Item version of the Prodromal Questionnaire(PQ-16) in evaluating psychosis-risk of college students. Methods A survey by using PQ-16 was conducted in 2496 college students, and those with distress score >6 were further interviewed with Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes(SIPS). Results The Cronbach`s alpha for item score model and distress score model of PQ-16 was 0.751 and 0.784, respectively. The Guttman split-half coefficient was 0.721 by the item score and 0.761 by the distress score. By exploratory factor analysis, there were 4 factors with initial eigenvalue >1. The cumulative variation was 41.7%, and the matrix values of all factors were 0.404-0.639. The Pearson coefficient between item scores and total scores was 0.355-0.548, while between distress scores and total scores was 0.385-0.597(P＜0.01). Among participants whose distress scores>6,1 subjects had positive SIPS results and 599 had negative results, there was significant difference in distress scores between these two groups(P＜0.05).The area under the ROC curve of distress score was greater than that of item score, and a cut-off distress score of 10 yielded 68% sensitivity and 73% specificity for psychosis-risk assessment. Conclusion The PQ-16 in Chinese version shows good reliability and validity when evaluating psychosis-risk in college students and the distress score model is better for screening. |
| Key words: psychosis-risk college students reliability validity |
