摘要
目的将反思功能问卷-54(RFQ-54)引入中国,检验其在我国人群样本中的信效度。方法选取635名沈阳市在校大学生作为学校组,选取同期在中国医科大学附属盛京医院心理门诊就诊、具有边缘型人格特质的75例患者作为临床组,2组均完成RFQ-54、米氏边缘性人格障碍检测表(MIS-BPD)、多伦多述情障碍量表(TAS)和五因素正念度量表(FFMQ)。3周后随机抽取44名大学生重测。结果过度心智化(RFQ-C),心智化缺陷(RFQ-U)分量表的一致性信度均为0.628,重测信度分别为0.835和0.683(均P<0.01),学校组中RFQ-54各分量表得分与TAS、FFMQ、MIS-BPD各分量表得分的关联效度检验表明其效度理想。RFQ-C和RFQ-U得分在独生与非独生,城市与农村,学校组与临床组之间存在统计学差异(分别为22.11±1.34 vs 18.97±1.22,22.59±1.36 vs 17.61±1.12,21.39±1.32 vs 15.34±1.08,10.95±8.43 vs 13.58±8.19,10.95±8.36 vs 13.88±8.26,11.47±8.02vs 22.43±1.24,均P<0.01)。结论 RFQ-54中文版具有良好的信度和效度,适用于我国成人反思功能的测量。
Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of reflective functioning questionary-54 （RFQ-54） in China. Methods School sample ： a total of 635 students were selected for the study. Clinical patients ： another 75 patients with borderline personality trait who visited Department of Psychiatry in Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University were recruited. All subjects filled the RFQ-54, MIS-BPD,TAS, FFMQ. 44 students accepted the retest after three weeks. Results The internal consistency for RFQ-C and RFQ-U were both 0.628. The test-retest reliability was 0.835,0.683,respectively. The correlations with TAS, FFMQ, MIS-BPD supported its validity. The RFQ subscales scores were significantly different between only-child and non-only child, urban and country, school group and clinical group （22.11 ± 1.34 vs 18.97 ± 1.22,22.59 ± 1.36 vs 17.61 ± 1.12,21.39 ± 1.32 vs 15.34 ± 1.08,10.95 ± 8.43 vs 13.58 ± 8.19, 10.95 ± 8.36 vs 13.88 ± 8.26,11.47 ±8.02 vs 22.43±1.24, respectively. P 〈 0.01）. Conclusion The Chinese version of RFQ-54 shows good reliability and validity, which can be used to assess the reflective function of adults in China.
出处
《中国医科大学学报》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2017年第10期878-881,共4页
Journal of China Medical University
基金
辽宁省自然科学基金(2015020485)
关键词
心智化
反思功能
成人
信度
效度
mentalization
reflective function
adults
reliability
validity
