摘要
目的:翻译和修订墨尔本决策问卷(Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire,MDMQ),并在大学生群体中进行信效度检验。方法:475名大学生完成中文版MDMQ、通用决策风格问卷、应对方式问卷以及认知需求问卷,其中88人两周后被召回重测MDMQ。结果:探索性因子分析与验证性因子分析结果均显示,MDMQ呈现三维结构。修订后的MDMQ共19个项目,且各项目鉴别力良好,各维度内部一致性系数为0.72~0.87,重测信度为0.73~0.84;MDMQ的警觉维度与理智型决策风格(r=0.53,P<0.01)、积极应对方式(r=0.31,P<0.01)、认知需求(r=0.38,P<0.01)正相关;推诿与依赖型(r=0.34,P<0.01)、逃避型(r=0.49,P<0.01)决策风格以及消极应对方式(r=0.26,P<0.01)显著正相关,与认知需求(r=-0.14,P<0.01)显著负相关;犹豫不决与依赖型(r=0.29,P<0.01)、逃避型(r=0.65,P<0.01)决策风格以及消极应对方式(r=0.30,P<0.01)显著正相关,与认知需求(r=-0.18,P<0.01)显著负相关。结论:修订后的MDMQ信效度指标良好,符合测量学要求。
Objective:To translate and revise the Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire(MDMQ),and test its reliability and validity.Methods:A total of 475 Chinese undergraduate students participated in this study,in which they responded to the Chinese vision of MDMQ,the General Decision-Making Style Questionnaire,the Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire,and the Need for Cognition Scale.Two weeks later,88 participants were recalled to re-response to MDMQ.Results:Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the three-factor model of the MDMQ.The revised MDMQ consisted of 19 items,and each of them showed good discriminability.The internal consistency coefficients of the subscales of MDMQ ranged from 0.72 to 0.87,and the retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.84,proving excellent reliability.Vigilance was positively correlated with rational decision making style(r=0.53,P<0.01),positive coping style(r=0.31,P<0.01),and need for cognition(r=0.38,P<0.01);Buck-passing positively correlated with dependent(r=0.34,P<0.01)and avoidant(r=0.49,P<0.01)decision making styles,negative coping style(r=0.26,P<0.01),and negatively correlated with need for cognition(r=-0.14,P<0.01);Hesitant was positively correlated with dependent(r=0.29,P<0.01)and avoidant(r=0.65,P<0.01)decision making styles,negative coping style(r=0.30,P<0.01),and negatively correlated with need for cognition(r=-0.18,P<0.01).Conclusion:The revised MDMQ has good reliability and validity,and can be used in the future studies.
作者
彭嘉熙
陈立波
黄荷
孙浩
黄祺临
方鹏
苗丹民
PENG Jia-xi;CHEN Li-bo;HUANG He;SUN Hao;HUANG Qi-lin;FANG Peng;MIAO Dan-min(College of Teachers,Chengdu University,Chengdu 610106,China;School of Econimics&Management,Southwest University of Science and Technology,Mianyang 621010,China;Department of Military Medical Psychology,Air Force Military Medical University,Xi’an 710032,China;Army Logistics University of PLA,Chongqing 401331,China)
出处
《中国临床心理学杂志》
CSSCI
CSCD
北大核心
2021年第1期74-78,共5页
Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology
基金
国家自然科学基金青年项目(31900791)
教育部人文社科基金青年项目(19YJC190020)
军事医学创新专项(18CXZ012)
军事医学科技青年培育计划(20NPY049)
中国博士后科学基金面上项目(2019M653963)
关键词
墨尔本决策问卷
决策冲突
信度
效度
Melbourne decision making questionnaire
Decisional conflict
Reliability
Validity scale
