以质量求发展，以服务铸品牌

护理学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (9): 10-15.doi: 10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2019.09.010

• 研究生园地 • 上一篇    下一篇

中文版肿瘤信息满意度量表在头颈肿瘤患者中的信效度分析

李玉1, 刘俐惠2a, 石增霞2b, 亢东琴3, 陈志琦1, 王自盼1, 王璟1, 郭红1, 岳树锦1   

  1. 1.北京中医药大学 护理学院,北京 102488;
    2.北京世纪坛医院 a.护理部;b.耳鼻喉头颈外科,北京 100038;
    3.北京大学肿瘤医院暨北京市肿瘤防治研究所 护理部,北京 100142
  • 收稿日期:2018-10-21 发布日期:2020-07-17
  • 通讯作者: 岳树锦（1976-）,女,山东聊城人,博士,副教授,硕士研究生导师。E-mail:yueliang874@126.com
  • 作者简介:李 玉（1992-）,女,山东淄博人,本科学历,硕士研究生在读。

Reliability and Validity of Chinese Version of Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile inPatients with Head and Neck Cancer

LI Yu1, LIU Li-hui, SHI Zeng-xia, KANG Dong-qin3, CHEN Zhi-qi1, WANG Zi-pan1, WANG Jing1, GUO Hong1, YUE Shu-jin1   

  1. 1. School of Nursing, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 102488, China;
    2a. Dept.of Nursing Administration;
    2b. Dept. of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Beijing 100038, China;
    3. Dept. of Nursing Administration, Beijing University Cancer Hospital, Beijing Institute of Cancer Research, Beijing 100142, China
  • Received:2018-10-21 Published:2020-07-17

PDF (PC)

230

赞

摘要： 目的 本研究对肿瘤信息满意度量表进行跨文化调试,并在头颈肿瘤患者中验证了量表的信效度。方法 采用Brislin翻译步骤对量表进行翻译与引进。本研究采用Cronbach α系数评价量表内部一致性,通过内容效度、集合效度、区别效度和探索性因子分析评价量表效度。结果 量表的内容效度为0.875~1.000,肿瘤信息满意度分量表A的集合效度为0.649~0.787,区别效度为0.118~0.422,各因子间的相关系数r的范围为0.458~0.557;探索性因子分析中KMO值为0.809,共提取出3个公因子：不良反应,长远影响,社会/经济影响;累积解释总变异的 54.92%;肿瘤信息满意度分量表A与B的Cronbach α系数分别为 0.826、0.947。结论 中文版肿瘤信息满意度量表具有良好的信度和效度,适合作为评估头颈肿瘤患者信息满意度的测评工具。

关键词: 头颈肿瘤, 信息满意度, 信度, 效度

Abstract: Objective To conduct cross-cultural adaptation and analyze the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP) in patients with head and neck cancer. Methods Brislin's translation steps were used to translate and introduce the scale. The internal consistency of the scale was evaluated with Cronbach α coefficient and the validity of the scale by content validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity and exploratory factor analysis. Results The content validity of the scale was 0.875~1.000. The convergent validity of subscale SCIP-A was 0.649~0.787; the distinguishing validity 0.118~0.422, and the range of correlation coefficient 0.458~0.557. In exploratory factor analysis, the KMO value was 0.809. Three common factors (side effect, long-term effect, social / economic impact) were extracted, and 54.92% of the total variation was explained. The Cronbach α coefficients of SCIP-A and SCIP-B were 0.826 and 0.947, respectively. Conclusion The Chinese version of SCIP has good reliability and validity and is suitable for monitoring information satisfaction of head and neck cancer patients.

Key words: head and neck tumor, satisfaction with cancer information, reliability, validity

中图分类号: 

  • R473.73
[1] 武燕燕,郑一宁,赵立新,等.癌症患者医疗信息满意度研究进展[J].中国护理管理杂志, 2012, 12(5):84-87.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2012.05.027.
[2] Iconomou G, Viha A, Koutras A, et al.Impact of Providing Booklets about Chemotherapy to Newly Presenting Patients with Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial[J]. Ann Oncol, 2006,17(3):515-520.DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdj098.
[3] Griggs J J, Sorbero M E, Mallinger J B, et al.Vitality, Mental Health, and Satisfaction with Information after Breast Cancer[J]. Patient Educ Couns, 2007,66(1):58-66.DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2006.10.008.
[4] Longacre M L.Cancer Caregivers Information Needs and Resource Preferences[J]. J Cancer Educ, 2013, 28(2):297-305.DOI:10.1007/s13187-013-0472-2.
[5] Koizumi A, Matsushima E, Mochizuki Y, et al.Changes in the Psychological Characteristics of Oral Cancer Patients in the Perioperative Period: A Quantitative Evaluation[J]. J Med Dent Sci,2013,60(1):41-53.DOI:10.11480/jmds.600105.
[6] Wells M, Cunningham M, Lang H, et al.Distress, Concerns and Unmet Needs in Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer: A Cross-sectional Survey[J]. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl),2015,24(5):748-760.DOI:10.1111/ecc.12370.
[7] Henry M, Habib L A,Morrison M,et al.Head and Neck Cancer Patients Want Us to Support Them Psychologically in the Posttreatment Period: Survey Results[J]. Palliat Support Care,2014,12(6):481-493.DOI:10.1017/S1478951513000771.
[8] Nekhlyudov L, Lacchetti C, Davis N B, et al.Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement of the American Cancer Society Guideline[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2017, 35(14):1606-1621.DOI:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.8478.
[9] Bower J E, Bak K, Berger A, et al.Screening, Assessment, and Management of Fatigue in Adult Survivors of Cancer: An American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation[J]. J Clin Oncol,2014,32(17):1840-1850.DOI:10.1200/JCO.2013.53.4495.
[10] Harrison J D, Young J M, Price M A,et al.What Are the Unmet Supportive Care Needs of People with Cancer? A Systematic Review[J]. Support Care Cancer, 2009,17(8):1117-1128.DOI:10.1007/s00520-009-0615-5.
[11] Fang C Y, Heckman C J.Informational and Support Needs of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: Current Status and Emerging Issues[J]. Cancers Head Neck,2016(1):15.DOI: 10.1186/s41199-016-0017-6.
[12] Hankins M C, Llewellyn C D.Is the Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP) Valid for Tailoring Information for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer?[J]. BMC Cancer,2008(8):164.DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-8-164.
[13] Llewellyn C D, Mcgurk M, Weinman J.How Satisfied Are Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) Patients with the Information They Receive Pre-treatment? Results from the Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP)[J]. Oral Oncol, 2006, 42(7):726-734.DOI:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2005.11.013.
[14] Llewellyn C D, Horne R, Mcgurk M,et al.Development and Preliminary Validation of a New Measure to Assess Satisfaction with Information among Head and Neck Cancer Patients: The Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP)[J]. Head Neck, 2006, 28(6):540-548.DOI:10.1002/hed.20450.
[15] Cha E S, Kim K H, Erlen J A.Translation of Scales in Cross-cultural Research: Issues and Techniques[J]. J Adv Nurs ,2007,58(4):386-395.DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x.
[16] Martin J S, Vincenzi C, Spirig R.Principles and Methods of Good Practice for the Translation Process for Instruments of Nursing Research and Nursing Practice[J]. Pflege, 2007,20(3):157-163.DOI:10.1024/1012-5302.20.3.157.
[17] Hankins M C, Llewellyn C D.Is the Satisfaction with Cancer Information Profile (SCIP) Valid for Tailoring Information for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer?[J]. BMC Cancer,2008,8:164.DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-8-164.
[18] 史静琤,莫显昆,孙振球. 量表编制中内容效度指数的应用[J].中南大学学报(医学版),2012,37(2):49-52.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-7347.2012.02.007.
[19] 吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务--SPSS操作与应用[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,2014:216-244.
[20] 倪宗珊. 医学统计学[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[21] 陈维,黄程琰,毛天欣,等.多维测评工具聚敛和区分效度的SEM分析--以领悟社会支持量表为例[J].西南师范大学学报(自然科学版),2016,41(2):136-140.DOI:10.13718/j.cnki.xsxb.2016.02.024.
[22] 吴静芬,罗阳.口腔颌面部肿瘤患者身心康复影响因素及护理现状分析[J].护理学报,2010,17(10B):16-20.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-9969.2010.20.006.
[23] 梁赛,谌永毅,许湘华,等.头颈部肿瘤患者生存质量与应对方式及社会支持的相关性研究[J].护理学报,2017,24(10):62-66. DOI:10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2017.10.062.
[1] 邓丽萍, 谢小华, 王亚萍, 杨洁, 潘璐, 马家惠, 肖静怡, 熊小云. 脑卒中高危人群保护动机问卷的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(8): 1-5.
[2] 刘丽萍, 周春兰, 吴艳妮, 从维莲, 胡明钰, 李晓霞. 情绪抑制量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(8): 6-10.
[3] 潘国翠, 李梅. 决策疲劳量表的汉化及其应用于ICU患者家属的信度效度评价[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(12): 38-41.
[4] 王洁, 郭燕. 急性白血病患儿照顾者照护知信行问卷的编制及信度效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(6): 1-5.
[5] 王玉梅, 张岚, 乐琼, 吴丽芬, 熊莉娟, 杨雪娇, 张学辉. 中文版早产儿非营养性吸吮功能评估量表的信效度分析[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(3): 62-65.
[6] 王妍, 刘峰, 田敏, 张楠. 心内科护理安全管理评价量表的编制及信度效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(15): 5-8.
[7] 吉加梅, 罗彩凤, 徐剑鸥. 护士情域能力评价量表的编制及信度效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(15): 46-50.
[8] 盛晓娟, 陈文月, 傅巧美. Groningen骨科社会支持量表汉化及其应用于髋膝关节置换术后患者中的信效度研究[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(14): 51-54.
[9] 龚瑾, 郑洁. 重症监护室尊重氛围量表的汉化及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(13): 55-58.
[10] 郭莉,霍淑平,刘艳,刘德洪. 护士工作成瘾量表的汉化及其信效度评价[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(8): 27-31.
[11] 董卫红,蓝丽玲,夏聪. 自测健康评定量表评价广州市5家三级甲等医院护理人员的信效度研究[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(8): 39-41.
[12] 蔡建平,江子芳. 中文版癌症患者恐惧疾病进展简化量表应用于女性乳腺癌患者的信度效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(7): 5-8.
[13] 陈芳,程晓姣. 中文版决策后悔量表应用于面部美容受术者的信效度评价[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(7): 42-44.
[14] 何雪梅,翟惠敏,颜海萍. 护士人文执业能力测评指标体系的科学性评价[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(3): 11-15.
[15] 徐涓萍, 郑洁, 周春华. 中文版4条目NASA任务负荷量表在ICU护士中的应用与信效度评价[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(22): 55-58.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
[1] 夏婷婷,王淑云,杨富国,马蕙,尹春岚,王广宁,范海霞,李瑶瑶. 肠造口患者造口压力及希望水平与自我管理的相关性研究[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(18): 8 -11 .
[2] 王婧,刘芮寒,巩文花,邹宇,王宇,王芳. 自我效能在2型糖尿病患者社会支持和心理弹性的中介作用[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(18): 12 -15 .
[3] 蒋文春,温贤秀,顾凤娇. 应用德尔菲法和层次分析法构建血液透析室护理管理质量评价标准体系[J]. 护理学报, 2018, 25(18): 16 -21 .
[4] 冉丽伟, 董渠龙, 李桂青, 张岩, 孙超颖, 刘洪青, 苏玉美, 史海霞. 发展取向的绩效考核对助产士行为的影响[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(18): 12 -14 .
[5] 李艳红, 刘宇英, 张海英. 健康管理中心护理人力资源短缺的管理实践[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(18): 15 -17 .
[6] 高泽宇, 高晶晶, 周颖, 周文琦. 基于互联网技术的护士培训与考试平台的建立与使用[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(18): 18 -21 .
[7] 何文斌, 廖尧, 尹熙, 杨茜, 胡君娥, 严妍, 周雪果, 姚小云, 陈红宇. 心脏瓣膜置换术后患者Ⅰ期心脏康复的最佳证据总结[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(18): 32 -36 .
[8] 冷雅楠, 张敏, 李玉琦, 刘婷婷, 庞晓丽. 206名护士组织公民行为现状及影响因素分析[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(18): 37 -41 .
[9] 何华, 刘利, 杨靖, 张阳阳, 王黎红, 张亚妮, 康国华, 张敏. 改良移除和粘贴敷贴方法预防PICC患者医用粘胶相关性皮肤损伤的效果观察[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(7): 61 -64 .
[10] 张鲁敏, 顾芬, 任皎皎, 陈刘莺. 叙事护理对COPD患者焦虑抑郁及生活质量的影响[J]. 护理学报, 2019, 26(7): 65 -69 .