中文版精神病高危症状量表的信度和效度

摘要

目的:检验中文版精神病高危症状量表( SOPS)的信度和效度.方法:经原著者同意,汉化英文版精神病高危综合征定式访谈( SIPS)工具,该工具包括精神病高危症状量表(SOPS).应用中文版SIPS在心理咨询中心筛选出104例精神病高危综合征(PRS)个体,对其进行SOPS评分.用组内相关法(ICC)计算评估者间一致性信度；Cronbach α系数计算内部一致性信度；计算单项与总和的Spearman相关系数；应用探索性因子分析检测SOPS的结构效度；应用Pearson相关分析探讨SOPS与阳性及阴性症状量表( PANSS)的同时效度;半年后对PRS个体随访,观察向精神病性障碍的转化率,评估预测效度.结果:中文版SOPS评定者间一致性系数为0.96;Cronbach α系数为0.71；各条目与总分的相关系数在0.19到0.66之间(P＜0.05)；探索性因子分析得到3个因子,解释总方差的43.9％,除了P3夸大观念、P4知觉异常/幻觉,其余项目的因子载荷均高于0.4；同时效度分析,SOPS总分与PANSS总分显著相关(r =0.63,P＜0.01)；半年后随访发现PRS个体向精神病性障碍的转化率为5.8％.结论:中文版SOPS评估精神病高危症状具有良好的信度和效度,可以用于评估及研究我国的精神病高危患者.%Objective: To test the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Scale of Psychosis-risk Symptoms (SOPS). Methods:The English version of Structured Interview for Psychosis-risk Syndromes (SIPS), which included the Scale of Psychosis-risk Symptoms (SOPS), was translated to the Chinese version. Using the Chinese version of SIPS, 104 subjects were collected in psychology consulting center and were diagnosed as psychosis-risk syndrome (PRS). They were assessed with the Chinese version of SOPS. The intraclass correlations coefficient was calculated to estimate inter-rater reliability of SOPS. The Cronbach's α coefficient was employed to evaluate the internal reliability. Spearman correlation was calculated to indicate the item-total correlation. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the factorial construct Pearson correlation was calculated to evaluate the concurrent validity between SOPS and Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS). Regarding the predictive validity of SOPS, the potency of this instrument in identifying psychosis-risk subjects converting to psychotic disorders in a 6-month period was analyzed. Results: The inter-rater reliability of the total score of SOPS was 0. % (P <0.01). The Cronbach' s α coefficient was 0. 71. The item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.19 to 0.66 (Ps < 0. 05). Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a three-factor construct: negative, positive and disorganization symptom. The 3-factor construct could explain 43. 9% of total variance. Except item P3 grandiose ideas and P4 perceptual abnormalities/hallucinations, the factor loading of the remained items were more than 0. 40. There was a significant correlation between total score of SOPS and PANSS (r =0. 63, P <0. 01). The incidence of psychotic disorders in the follow up period was 5. 8% among this sample. Conclusion: It suggests that the Chinese version of SOPS is an instrument with good reliability and validity. It could be used for the assessment and research of subjects with psychosis-risk syndromes in China.