于洋, 戴俊明, 李晓梅, 沈奕峰, 扶雪莲, 陈苏虹. 健康安全氛围量表的信度与效度研究[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2021, 38(11): 1214-1218. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2021.21180
引用本文: 于洋, 戴俊明, 李晓梅, 沈奕峰, 扶雪莲, 陈苏虹. 健康安全氛围量表的信度与效度研究[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2021, 38(11): 1214-1218. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2021.21180
YU Yang, DAI Junming, LI Xiaomei, SHEN Yifeng, FU Xuelian, CHEN Suhong. Reliability and validity of Health and Safety Climate Survey[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2021, 38(11): 1214-1218. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2021.21180
Citation: YU Yang, DAI Junming, LI Xiaomei, SHEN Yifeng, FU Xuelian, CHEN Suhong. Reliability and validity of Health and Safety Climate Survey[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2021, 38(11): 1214-1218. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2021.21180

健康安全氛围量表的信度与效度研究

Reliability and validity of Health and Safety Climate Survey

  • 摘要: 背景

    工作场所的健康和安全氛围对职工身心健康具有重要影响,目前国内尚缺乏针对工作场所健康安全氛围的标准化评价工具。

    目的

    对健康安全氛围量表(Health and Safety Climate Survey)进行汉化并检验其信效度。

    方法

    通过翻译-回译-专家评议对英文版健康安全氛围量表进行汉化,选择2600名采用配额抽样法抽取的上海市浦东新区16家企事业单位职工进行测试,检验中文版量表的信效度。效度评价选取结构、聚合和区分效度3个指标。结构效度采用探索性因子分析和验证性因子分析。探索性因子分析需结合各条目在所属维度上的因子载荷判断拟合情况,当因子载荷>0.60,表示拟合结果良好。验证性因子分析中标准绝对适配度指标选用渐进残差均方和平方根(RMSEA),如其<0.05,表示适配度非常好;增值与简约适配度指标分别选用比较适配指数(CFI)和简约调整后的非规准适配度指数(PNFI),如其数值>0.90,表示适配度非常好。聚合效度采用平均方差抽取量(AVE)评价,当AVE>0.50时,表明聚合效度良好。区分效度用AVE的平方根是否大于潜变量间的相关系数来判断,若大于相关系数,则表示区分效度良好。信度评价选取内部一致性信度和组合信度2个指标,采用Cronbach’s α系数评价量表的内部一致性,若该值>0.90,表示内部一致性非常好。Cronbach’s α系数在误差相关的情形下可能会造成信度低估,因此需结合结构方程模型计算组合信度系数(CR)进行综合评价,当CR>0.70,表示组合信度良好。

    结果

    问卷有效回收率为95.69%。中文版健康安全氛围量表有22个条目,探索性因子分析提取了6个公因子,累计方差贡献率达74.79%。验证性因子分析得到修正后的RMSEA=0.045, PNFI=0.970,CFI=0.975,模型的整体适配理想。各维度的AVE均大于0.50,聚合效度理想。各两两维度之间的AVE的平方根均大于其相关系数,区分效度良好。总量表的Cronbach’s α系数为0.90,各维度的Cronbach’s α系数都在0.70以上,总量表的CR为0.93,各维度CR>0.70,量表的总体信度良好。

    结论

    中文版健康安全氛围量表具有良好的信效度,可在实际应用中进一步完善。

     

    Abstract: Background

    The health and safety climate of workplace has an important impact on the physical and mental health of workers. There is no available scale for the evaluation of workplace health and safety climate in China at present.

    Objective

    This study aims to sinicize and evaluate the reliability and validity of the Health and Safety Climate Survey.

    Methods

    The English version of Health and Safety Climate Survey was translated to Chinese and back-translated to English, and followed by expert evaluation to develop a Chinese version. Quota sampling method was used to select 2600 employees from 16 enterprises and public institutions in Pudong New Area of Shanghai and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the scale. Structural validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity were included in validity evaluation. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to test structural validity. In EFA, an acceptable factor loading of items on their respective dimensions was > 0.60. In CFA, an acceptable root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), a standard absolute fitness index, was < 0.05. Comparative fit index (CFI) and parsimony-adjusted non-normed fit index (PNFI), measures of incremental improvement and fit, > 0.90 indicated a good fit. Convergent validity was evaluated by average variance extracted (AVE), and an AVE > 0.50 indicated good convergent validity. Discriminant validity was determined as good by the square root of AVE greater than the correlation coefficient between latent variables. Cronbach’s α coefficient was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale; the internal consistency considered was very good with an α > 0.90. Cronbach’s α coefficient may cause underestimation of reliability in the case of error correlation. Therefore, composite reliability (CR) calculated based on structural equation model >0.70 indicated that the CR was good.

    Results

    The response rate was 95.69%. The Chinese version of Health and Safety Climate Survey included 22 items belonging to six dimensions which was extracted by the EFA, and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 74.79%. The corrected RMSEA was 0.045, the PNFI was 0.970, and the CFI was 0.975 in the CFA, indicating good fit. The dimensional AVE values were all greater than 0.50, indicating good CV. The square root of AVE was greater than the correlation coefficient between latent variables, indicating good DV. The Cronbach’s α was 0.90 for the total scale and were above 0.70 for all dimensions. The CR was 0.93 for the total scale and were above 0.70 for all dimensions, indicating that the overall reliability of the scale was good.

    Conclusion

    The Chinese version of Health and Safety Climate Survey has good reliability and validity, and can be further improved in field application.

     

/

返回文章
返回