奖励概率指数中文版在阿片类药物依赖个体中的信度和效度

中华行为医学与脑科学杂志 Pub Date : 2020-02-20 DOI:10.3760/CMA.J.CN371468-20190916-00622

Han Yan, Yun Chen, Hongfei Ma, N. Xie, Xia Wang, Stacey B. Daughters, M. Chawarski, Wang Zhou

{"title":"奖励概率指数中文版在阿片类药物依赖个体中的信度和效度","authors":"Han Yan, Yun Chen, Hongfei Ma, N. Xie, Xia Wang, Stacey B. Daughters, M. Chawarski, Wang Zhou","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.CN371468-20190916-00622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo evaluate the reliability and validity of the Reward Probability Index-Chinese version (C-RPI) among individuals with opioid dependence. \n \n \nMethods \nA total of 160 individuals with opioid dependence were recruited from the methadone maintenance treatment(MMT) programs in Wuhan.The C-RPI was used in the investigation, and items/exploratory factors and confirmatory factors were adopted to analyze with IBM SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 24.0, respectively. \n \n \nResults \nThe correlation between each item and the total score of the scale was 0.325-0.657 (all P<0.01) and the item discrimination of the scale was good.Exploratory factor analysis extracted two factors, including reward probability and environmental suppressors, and a load of each item on its factor ranged from 0.519 to 0.744.The fitting indexes of confirmatory factor analysis were as follows: χ2/df=1.623, RMR=0.030, RMSEA=0.063, IFI=0.902, TLI=0.885, CFI =0.900.The internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach's α) of the C-RPI was 0.800; and there was no ceiling/floor effect on each dimension and total scale. \n \n \nConclusion \nThe classification of dimensions for the C-RPI is reasonable, and the scale has good reliability and validity to measure the ability to obtain environmental rewards for individuals with opioid dependence. \n \n \nKey words: \nReward probability index (RPI); Reliability; Validity; Opioid dependence","PeriodicalId":9940,"journal":{"name":"中华行为医学与脑科学杂志","volume":"29 1","pages":"172-176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The reliability and validity of Reward Probability Index-Chinese version applied among individuals with opioid dependence\",\"authors\":\"Han Yan, Yun Chen, Hongfei Ma, N. Xie, Xia Wang, Stacey B. Daughters, M. Chawarski, Wang Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/CMA.J.CN371468-20190916-00622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective \\nTo evaluate the reliability and validity of the Reward Probability Index-Chinese version (C-RPI) among individuals with opioid dependence. \\n \\n \\nMethods \\nA total of 160 individuals with opioid dependence were recruited from the methadone maintenance treatment(MMT) programs in Wuhan.The C-RPI was used in the investigation, and items/exploratory factors and confirmatory factors were adopted to analyze with IBM SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 24.0, respectively. \\n \\n \\nResults \\nThe correlation between each item and the total score of the scale was 0.325-0.657 (all P<0.01) and the item discrimination of the scale was good.Exploratory factor analysis extracted two factors, including reward probability and environmental suppressors, and a load of each item on its factor ranged from 0.519 to 0.744.The fitting indexes of confirmatory factor analysis were as follows: χ2/df=1.623, RMR=0.030, RMSEA=0.063, IFI=0.902, TLI=0.885, CFI =0.900.The internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach's α) of the C-RPI was 0.800; and there was no ceiling/floor effect on each dimension and total scale. \\n \\n \\nConclusion \\nThe classification of dimensions for the C-RPI is reasonable, and the scale has good reliability and validity to measure the ability to obtain environmental rewards for individuals with opioid dependence. \\n \\n \\nKey words: \\nReward probability index (RPI); Reliability; Validity; Opioid dependence\",\"PeriodicalId\":9940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华行为医学与脑科学杂志\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"172-176\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华行为医学与脑科学杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.CN371468-20190916-00622\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华行为医学与脑科学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.CN371468-20190916-00622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评价阿片类药物依赖者奖赏概率指数中文版(C-RPI)的信度和效度。方法从武汉市美沙酮维持治疗(MMT)项目中招募160名阿片类药物依赖者。采用C-RPI量表进行调查，采用IBM SPSS 22.0和AMOS 24.0分别对项目/探索性因素和验证性因素进行分析。结果量表各题项与总分的相关系数为0.325 ~ 0.657 (P均<0.01)，量表的题项判别性较好。探索性因子分析提取了奖励概率和环境抑制因子两个因子，每个项目对其因子的负荷范围为0.519 ~ 0.744。验证性因素分析的拟合指标为:χ2/df=1.623, RMR=0.030, RMSEA=0.063, IFI=0.902, TLI=0.885, CFI =0.900。C-RPI的内部一致性系数(Cronbach’s α)为0.800;各维度及总尺度均无天花板/地板效应。结论C-RPI量表的维度分类合理，具有较好的信度和效度，可用于衡量阿片类药物依赖个体获得环境奖励的能力。关键词:奖励概率指数(RPI);可靠性;效度;阿片类药物依赖

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The reliability and validity of Reward Probability Index-Chinese version applied among individuals with opioid dependence

Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Reward Probability Index-Chinese version (C-RPI) among individuals with opioid dependence. Methods A total of 160 individuals with opioid dependence were recruited from the methadone maintenance treatment(MMT) programs in Wuhan.The C-RPI was used in the investigation, and items/exploratory factors and confirmatory factors were adopted to analyze with IBM SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 24.0, respectively. Results The correlation between each item and the total score of the scale was 0.325-0.657 (all P<0.01) and the item discrimination of the scale was good.Exploratory factor analysis extracted two factors, including reward probability and environmental suppressors, and a load of each item on its factor ranged from 0.519 to 0.744.The fitting indexes of confirmatory factor analysis were as follows: χ2/df=1.623, RMR=0.030, RMSEA=0.063, IFI=0.902, TLI=0.885, CFI =0.900.The internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach's α) of the C-RPI was 0.800; and there was no ceiling/floor effect on each dimension and total scale. Conclusion The classification of dimensions for the C-RPI is reasonable, and the scale has good reliability and validity to measure the ability to obtain environmental rewards for individuals with opioid dependence. Key words: Reward probability index (RPI); Reliability; Validity; Opioid dependence

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

中华行为医学与脑科学杂志

自引率

0.00%

发文量

8131

期刊介绍： "Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science" (CN 37-1468/R, ISSN 1674-6554) is a national academic journal under the supervision of the National Health Commission, sponsored by the Chinese Medical Association and Jining Medical College. The journal was founded in June 1992 and was formerly known as "Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine" (1992-1993) and "Chinese Behavioral Medical Science" (1994-2008). In 2009, it was renamed "Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science" with the approval of the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television. The purpose of "Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science" is to implement the health and health policies of the Party and the State, implement the principle of combining theory with practice and popularization and improvement, and reflect the major progress in the theory and practical application of behavioral medicine and brain science in my country. It publishes academic papers and scientific research results in the field of behavioral medicine and brain science in my country, and has columns such as monographs/reviews, basic research, clinical research, health prevention, methods and techniques, psychological behavior and evaluation, and systematic evaluation.