查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 注意力不足過動症知識量表之發展及信效度評估
- 糖尿病營養知識量表之發展與應用
- 大學生需求困擾量表之信效度與結果運用
- 量性護理研究論文之分析: 研究設計、信效度、推論統計方法
- 認識過動症及社會工作角色的介入
- 班級中的焦點--注意力不足過動症候群(ADHD)
- 教師與家長對ADHD藥物使用應有的正思
- 國內三份期刊的醫管論文分析:抽樣方法、信效度、統計方法
- Characteristics and Rehabilitation Services Requirements of Children in Cognitive Motor Training Class: A Survey in Taichung County
- 教師如何有效教導注意力不足過動症學生
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 注意力不足過動症知識量表之發展及信效度評估=Development and Evaluation of the Validity and Reliability of a Questionnaire to Determine Knowledge about Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) |
---|---|
作 者 | 史麗珠; 鍾佳玘; 趙國玉; 林雪蓉; 侯嘉玲; 林慧芬; | 書刊名 | 臺灣公共衛生雜誌 |
卷 期 | 34:3 2015.06[民104.06] |
頁 次 | 頁319-334 |
分類號 | 415.989 |
關鍵詞 | 注意力不足過動症; 知識量表; 信效度; 教師及家長; Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; ADHD; Knowledge questionnaire; Validity and reliability; Teachers and parents; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 目標:發展一份適用於國小老師及一般家長的注意力不足過動症ADHD知識量表,並作信效度評估。方法:量表共10題,包括ADHD症狀、ADHD的出現年齡、流行特質、延誤就醫後果、可能致因、症狀持續、治療方式、停藥時機、行為治療及教師、家長可幫助患童的地方。採專家效度、已知團體差異的建構效度、項目分析、內在一致性、再測信度。研究樣本為參加新北市ADHD衛教活動的國小教師(563位)和一般家長(102位)。結果:專家效度(16位)的CVI=85.0%。項目分析方面,難度指數在29.1%至87.2%間(教師)、46.6%至68.6%間(家長),鑑別指數在24.3%至57.9%間(教師)、55.7%至89.2%間(家長)。教師的答對率(71.4%)顯著優於家長(59.0%),顯示具已知團體差異的建構效度。Cronbach’s α為0.52(教師)、0.69(家長)。22位教師及21位家長在兩週內填寫量表兩次,多落在95%一致性區間內,及沒有特別形態。結論:ADHD知識量表題數精簡,內容涵蓋範圍廣,具良好信效度,可作為測量教師、家長的ADHD知識,及評估衛教對於ADHD知識的增進成效。 |
英文摘要 | Objectives: The aims of this study were to develop a questionnaire to determine knowledge about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) of primary school teachers and parents (not necessarily those with an ADHD child), and to evaluate its validity and reliability. Methods: The study sample consisted of primary school teachers (n=563) and parents (n=102) who participated in ADHD education activities in New Taipei City. The 10 items on the questionnaire included signs, age of onset, epidemiologic characteristics, consequences if treatment were delayed, possible causes, means of treatment, when to stop medication, behavior therapy, and how teachers or parents can help ADHD children. Validity (including expert validity, item analysis, and known-group differences of construct validity) and reliability (including internal consistence and test-retest reliability) were assessed. Results: The mean content validity index (CVI) was 85% for 16 experts. The indices of difficulty were 29.1%-87.2% for teachers and 46.6%-68.6% for parents. The indices of discrimination were 24.3%-57.9% for teachers and 55.7%-89.2% for parents. The mean percentage of correct answers was 71.4% for teachers; this was significantly higher than that of parents (59.0%). Cronbach's α was 0.52 for teachers and 0.69 for parents. A total of 22 teachers and 21 parents completed the questionnaire twice in two weeks. Most of the data were within the 95% limit of agreement and there was no particular pattern. Conclusions: Our questionnaire is brief and covers many items, and it has acceptable psychometric properties. It can be used to assess the ADHD knowledge of teachers and parents, and can also be used to evaluate the educational effects of an ADHD lecture. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。