...
首页> 外文期刊>The clinical journal of pain >Confirmatory factor analysis of the coping strategies questionnaire-revised in samples of oncology outpatients and inpatients with pain.
【24h】

Confirmatory factor analysis of the coping strategies questionnaire-revised in samples of oncology outpatients and inpatients with pain.

机译:肿瘤门诊和疼痛住院患者样本中修订的应对策略问卷的验证性因素分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study of oncology outpatients with cancer pain were to perform an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 48-item Coping Strategy Questionnaire (CSQ) and a confirmatory factor analysis of the 6-factor solution of the Coping Strategy Questionnaire-Revised (CSQ-R) suggested by Riley and Robinson in 1997. In addition, differences in latent factor means and in the CSQ-R subscale scores between inpatients and outpatients were evaluated. METHODS: Data from oncology outpatients (n=217) and inpatients (n=225) with pain were used. The Mplus program was used to perform both the EFA and confirmatory factor analysis treating the items as ordinal, and using robust maximum likelihood estimation. Quartimin oblique rotation was used for the EFA. Model fit was evaluated with the chi test, the comparative fit index, the root mean square error of approximation, and the standardized root mean square residual, as well as by substantive evaluation of the solutions. RESULTS: The EFA of the original 48-item CSQ did not reproduce the factor structure defined by Rosentiel and Keefe. The 6-factor structure from the 27-item CSQ-R fit both the inpatient and outpatient data well with strong factorial invariance, as well as the combined data, allowing some correlated errors among items. Differences were found between the 2 samples for the ignoring, catastrophizing, and praying latent factor means, and for the catastrophizing and praying subscale means. DISCUSSION: The 27-item CSQ-R is recommended for use as a clinical instrument. However, further research of the 6-factor structure is recommended to identify reasons for the correlated errors.
机译:目的:本研究的癌症疼痛门诊患者的目的是对48项应对策略问卷(CSQ)进行探索性因素分析(EFA),并对应对策略问卷的6因子解决方案进行验证性因素分析。 -修订版(CSQ-R)由Riley和Robinson在1997年提出。此外,还评估了住院患者和门诊患者之间潜在因素的均值和CSQ-R子量表得分的差异。方法:使用肿瘤科门诊患者(n = 217)和住院患者(n = 225)的疼痛数据。 Mplus程序用于执行EFA和确认性因素分析,将项目视为序数,并使用可靠的最大似然估计。 Quartimin倾斜旋转用于全民教育。通过chi检验,比较拟合指数,近似均方根误差和标准化均方根残差以及对解决方案进行实质性评估来评估模型拟合。结果:最初的48个项目的CSQ的EFA不能重现Rosentiel和Keefe定义的因子结构。来自27个项目的CSQ-R的6因子结构很好地拟合了因数不变性强的住院和门诊数据以及组合数据,从而允许项目之间存在一些相关的错误。在忽略,灾难性和祈祷潜在因素均值以及灾难性和祈祷子量表均值的两个样本之间发现差异。讨论:建议将27项CSQ-R用作临床仪器。但是,建议对6因子结构进行进一步研究,以确定相关错误的原因。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号