高级检索
王东, 宁芳, 马宁, 曹若湘, 胡曼, 郝艳华. 北京市居民公众应急准备现状评价量表测试结果分析[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2017, 33(5): 703-706. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2017-33-05-04
引用本文: 王东, 宁芳, 马宁, 曹若湘, 胡曼, 郝艳华. 北京市居民公众应急准备现状评价量表测试结果分析[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2017, 33(5): 703-706. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2017-33-05-04
WANG Dong, NING Fang, MA Ning.et al, . Reliability and validity of public emergency preparedness assessment scale:a survey among citizens in Beijing city[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2017, 33(5): 703-706. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2017-33-05-04
Citation: WANG Dong, NING Fang, MA Ning.et al, . Reliability and validity of public emergency preparedness assessment scale:a survey among citizens in Beijing city[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2017, 33(5): 703-706. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2017-33-05-04

北京市居民公众应急准备现状评价量表测试结果分析

Reliability and validity of public emergency preparedness assessment scale:a survey among citizens in Beijing city

  • 摘要: 目的 在北京市居民中对《公众应急准备现状评价量表》的信度和效度进行检验。方法 采用多阶段整群抽样方法,在北京市东城区、朝阳区、门头沟区、延庆区选取1 000名常住人口作为调查对象,使用《公众应急准备现状评价量表》进行问卷调查,使用一致性检验、因子分析等方法对量表信度、效度进行检验。结果 有效调查998人,其中男性472人(47.77%),女性516人(52.23%);量表的一致性Cronbach's α系数为0.81,Spearman-Brown 系数为0.68,Guttman split-half系数为0.68,按人群特征分层后,量表的一致性系数和半分系数均在可接受范围,去除条目后的一致性Cronbach's α系数均无明显降低;因子分析结果显示,量表分为5个因子,分别为主动学习、应急风险感知、应急态度、处置自我效能和应急准备认知,累计方差贡献率解释为66.12%,各因子内部相关系数均>0.60,去除条目后的Cronbach's α系数均无明显降低。结论 量表具备较好的信度和结构效度,可以适用于北京居民人群应急准备状况的评价测量。

     

    Abstract: Objective To evaluated the reliability and validity of the public emergency preparedness assessment scale when applied among citizens in Beijing city.Methods Using multistage random cluster sampling,we recruited 1 000 citizens in 4 districts of Beijing municipality for a survey with ‘public emergency preparedness assessment scale’.Consistency test and factor analysis were adopted to evaluate the reliability and validity of the scale.Results Of the 988 participants with eligible response,472 (47.77%)were male and 516 (52.23%)were female.The scale was of a good consistency,with the coefficients of 0.81 for Cronbach's α,0.68 for Spearman-Brown,and 0.68 for Guttman split-half.After stratified by population,the consistency coefficient and the half coefficient of the scale were still within the acceptable values and there was no significant decrease in coefficient after removal of the items.Based on factor analysis there were 5 factors in the scale,including active learning,emergency risk perception,emergency attitude,efficacy of self-management,and emergency preparedness,and the 5 factors could explain 66.12% of the total variance.The internal correlation coefficients for each of the factors were all more than 0.60 and Cronbach's α coefficient was not significantly reduced after removal of the factor items.Conclusion The public emergency preparedness assessment scale is of good reliability and validity and could be used to assess public emergency preparedness among citizens in urban Beijing.

     

/

返回文章
返回