中文版分娩体验量表(CEQ-C)信效度的再验证

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (693 KB) HTML (33 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的检验“中文版分娩体验量表(CEQ-C)”的信效度,以判断该量表的稳定性。方法采用方便抽样的方法,于2019年7~8月在北京某三甲医院产科门诊对206名产后1个月左右复查的产妇进行问卷调查,产妇知情同意后自填问卷,回收有效问卷203份,通过计算量表内容效度、结构效度、区分效度和内部一致性等评估量表的效度和信度。结果 CEQ-C的内容效度为0.96,验证性因素分析显示结构拟合优度(CFI=0.955,TLI=0.946,RMSEA=0.047,SRMR=0.052, χ²/df=1.178)较好,不同分娩方式、是否催产和不同分娩疼痛感的产妇分娩体验有差异(P<0.05),具有较好的区分效度;内部一致性系数Cronbach's α为0.802。结论 CEQ-C具有良好的信效度,结构较为稳定,可以用于测量不同地区不同时期产妇的分娩体验状况,以评估助产服务的心理结局。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	朱秀
	刘鹭燕
	蓝敏艳
	杨敏
	卢㛃

关键词 ：分娩体验, 产妇, 量表, 信度, 效度

Abstract：Objective To re-examine psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of Chinese version Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ-C). Methods Using the method of convenient sampling, 206 pregnant women who were rechecked about one month after delivery were investigated in the obstetric clinic of a third class hospital in Beijing from July to August 2019. After informed consent, the pregnant women filled in the questionnaire and collected 203 valid questionnaires. The validity and reliability of the scale were evaluated by calculating the content validity, structural validity, discriminant validity and internal consistency of the scale. Results The content validity of CEQ-C was 0.96, the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the structure goodness of fit (CFI=0.955, TLI=0.946, RMSEA=0.047, SRMR=0.052, χ²/DF=1.178) was good. There were differences in the delivery experience of pregnant women with different delivery methods, whether to induce labor or not and different delivery pain (P<0.05), which means CEQ-C had a good differentiated validity; the internal consistency coefficient Cronbach's α was 0.802. Conclusion CEQ-C has good reliability and stable structure which could be used to measure the delivery experience in different regions and periods, and to evaluate the psychological outcome of midwifery services.

Key words： childbirth experience postpartum Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) reliability validity

收稿日期: 2020-10-28

ZTFLH:	R17
	R71

基金资助:朗泰护理科研基金项目(LTHL19MS02)

引用本文:

朱秀, 刘鹭燕, 蓝敏艳, 杨敏, 卢㛃. 中文版分娩体验量表(CEQ-C)信效度的再验证[J]. 中国生育健康杂志, 2022, 33(4): 324-329. ZHU Xiu, LIU Luyan, LAN Minyan, YANG Min, LU jie. Revalidation of reliability and validity of Chinese version Childbirth Experience Questionnaire. Chinese Journal of Reproductive Health, 2022, 33(4): 324-329.

链接本文:

http://cjrh.bjmu.edu.cn/CN/ 或 http://cjrh.bjmu.edu.cn/CN/Y2022/V33/I4/324

1 WHO.WHO recommendation:intrapartum care for positive childbirth experience.Geneva:World Health Organization:2018.
2 Shorey S,Yang YY,Ang E.The impact of negative childbirth experience on future reproductive decisions:A quantitative systematic review.J Adv Nurs,2018,74:1236-1244.
3 Miller S,Abalos E,Chamillard M,et al.Beyond too little,too late and too much,too soon:a pathway towards evidence-based,respectful maternity care worldwide.The Lancet,2016,388:2176-2192.
4 Nilver H,Begley C,Berg M.Measuring women's childbirth experiences:a systematic review for identification and analysis of validated instruments.BMC pregnancy childbirth,2017,17:203.
5 Dencker A,Taft C,Bergqvist L,et al.Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ):development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument.BMC pregnancy childbirth,2010,10:81.
6 Soriano-Vidal FJ,Oliver-Roig A,Cabrero-Garcia J,et al.The Spanish version of the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ-E):reliability and validity assessment.BMC pregnancy childbirth,2016,16:372.
7 Toivonen E,Palomaki O,Huhtala H,et al.Maternal experiences of vaginal breech delivery.Birth,2014:41:316-322.
8 廖培培.自然分娩产妇分娩体验的研究.安徽医科大学:2016.
9 Ghanbari-Homayi S,Dencker A,Fardiazar Z,et al.Validation of the Iranian version of the childbirth experience questionnaire 2.0. BMC pregnancy childbirth,2019,19:465.
10 Zhu X,Wang Y,Zhou H,et al.Adaptation of the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) in China:A multisite cross-sectional study.PloS one 2019,14:e0215373.
11 戴晓阳,曹亦薇.心理评定量表的编制和修订中存在的一些问题.中国临床心理学杂志,2009:17:562-565.
12 Terwee CB,Mokkink LB,Knol DL,et al.Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties:a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist.Qual Life Res,2012:21:651-657.
13 Terwee CB,Bot SD,de Boer MR,et al.Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.J Clin Epidemiol,2007,60:34-42.
14 Polit DF,Beck CT,Owen SV.Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.Res Nurs Health,2007,30:459-467.
15 Ruscio J,Roche B.Determining the number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis using comparison data of known factorial structure.Psychol Assess,2012:24:282-292.
16 Babyak MA,Green SB.Confirmatory factor analysis:an introduction for psychosomatic medicine researchers.Psychosom Med,2010,72:587-597.
17 Cole DA.Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research.J Consult Clin Psychol,1987,55:584-594.
18 Sawyer A,Rabe H,Abbott J,et al.Measuring parents' experiences and satisfaction with care during very preterm birth:a questionnaire development study.BJOG,2014,121:1294-1301.
19 Polit DF,Beck CT.Nursing Research:Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice.Ninth ed.China:Wolters Kluwer Health Lippicott Williams & Wilkins,2012.
20 Streiner DL.Figuring out factors:the use and misuse of factor analysis.Can J Psychiatry,1994,39:135-140.
21 吴斌,杨青,李青,等.产妇分娩体验现状及影响因素调查.实用临床护理学电子杂志,2017,2:107-108.
22 Adamson KA,Prion S.Reliability:Measuring Internal Consistency Using Cronbach's α.Clin Simul Nurs,2013,9:e179-e180.