臺灣健康危害行為監測系統之信度分析

The Taiwan Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System: Reliability Analysis

10.7014/SRMA.2011100004

許勝懋(Shen-Mao Hsu)；洪百薰(Baai-Shyun Hurng)；洪永泰(Yung-Tai Hungrng)

臺灣健康危害行為監測系統 ； 內部一致性信度 ； 再測信度 ； 二元勝算對數模型 ； TBRFSS ； internal consistency reliability ； test-etest reliability ； binary logit model

調查研究-方法與應用

26期（2011 / 10 / 01）

123 - 159

繁體中文

目標：介紹測量工具的信度的概念與評估方法，首先，探討受訪者個人特質回答穩定性的關係？其次，探討訪談語言與答案穩定性的關係？進而討論缺乏信度的工具對研究結果的影響，並以臺灣健康危害行為監測系統為例進行分析且提出建議。方法：2008年TBRFSS使用893個再測訪問個案，進行再次接觸且選擇五個題目進行測量。結果：在完訪的個案中，在信度檢測上，內部一致信度依照資料格式檢測，利用三高題目等名目尺度進行KR20信度值為0.374、利用自評健康與生活滿意度等順序尺度進行Cronbach's α信度值為0.477與利用身高、體重之等比尺度進行Guttman折半係數信度值為0.714，顯示內部一致性良好；再測信度則以test-retest信度測量，其中事實題型的Prevalence Adjusted Kappa值都在0.6以上，顯示再測信度的信度良好，但自評健康再測信度的Kappa值則為0.378，兩次回答一致的現象偏低，但若考慮程度差異的Weighted Kappa值則為0.665，顯示回答方向一致的穩定性。從二元勝算對數模型的分析可知，年齡、使用語言、語言與城鄉的交互作用與語言教育程度的交互作用都是影響民眾再測變化的主要原因。結論：臺灣健康危害行為監測系統具有良好之信度，本研究顯示再測信度改變與受訪者的年齡、訪談使用語言、訪談使用語言與受訪者居住城鄉之交互作用，以及訪談使用語言與受訪者教育程度之交互作用之間具有顯著相關。

This purpose of this study was to develop and test reliability of the Taiwan Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (TBRFSS) Questionnaire. Methods: In TBRFSS, 893 cases were selected for internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability. Result: 7 core items were selected for internal consistency with examining by KR20 (0.374), Cronbach's alpha (0.477) and the Guttman split-half reliability tests. (0.714). It shows good reliability of the scale. In addition, 5 core items of the TBRFSS were selected for reliability with examining by test-retest reliability tests. It shows good reliability with kappa 0.824, 0.828 and 0.693, indicating adequate criterion. The binary logit model was used to identify factors significantly associated with adjusted odds rations: age, mixed language (Hainanese and Mandarin Chinese) and the interactions (such as county with language and education with language). Conclusion: The reliability depends on the level of random error measurement tools. The TBRFSS was confirmed to be reliable and it can be applied in future studies to enrich the existing system for evaluation of behavior risk factor surveillance system. It was significantly associated with the factors of age of respondent, response language, interaction with townships of respondent and response language, interaction with education of respondent and response language.

1. 李中一(2004)。測量工具的效度與信度。台灣衛誌，23(4)，272-281。
   連結：
2. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: Operational and User's Guide Version 3.0, 2006..
3. Stevens, Stanley S. 1946 “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement,” Science 103: 667–680.
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2005 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: Operational and User's Guide.Atlanta, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved Dec 12, 2005, from ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/data/brfss/userguide.pdf.
5. 洪永泰、許勝懋、黃意婷2008 《 2008年臺灣健康危害行為監測系統執行報告》。國民健康局未出版報告。
6. Allison, Paul D.(2000).Multiple Imputation for Missing Data: A Cautionary Tale.Sociological Methods and Research,28,301-309.
7. Andresen, Elena M.,Catlin, T. K.,Wyrwich, K. W.,Jackson-Thompson, J.(2003).Retest Reliability of Surveillance Questions on Health Related Quality of Life.Journal of Epidemiology Community Health,57,339-343.
8. Bryk, Anthony S.,Raudenbush, Stephen W.(1992).Hierarchical Linear Models in Social and Behavioral Research: Applications and Data Analysis Methods.Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.
9. Carmines, G. Edward,Zeller, Richard A.(1979).Reliability and Validity Assessment.London:Sage.
10. Crocker, L.,Algina, J.(1986).Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory.New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winstton.
11. Everitt, Brian S.(1992).The Analysis of Contingency Tables.London:Chapman and Hall.
12. Fleiss, J.L.(1981).Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions.New York:John Wiley and Sons Inc.
13. Fowler, Floyd J.,Mangione, Thomas W.(1990).Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error.London:England Sage.
14. Kelsey, Jennifer L.,Whittemore, Alice S.,Evans, Alfred S.,Thompson, W. Douglas(1986).Methods in Observational Epidemiology.New York:Oxford University Press.
15. King, Gary,Honaker, James,Joseph, Anne,Scheve, Kenneth(2001).Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.American Political Science Review,95,49-69.
16. Long, Scott J.(1997).Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables.Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications.
17. Long, Scott J.,Freese, Jeremy(2006).Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata.College Station, TX:Stata Corp LP.
18. Lord, Frederic M.,Novick, Melvin R.(1968).Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores.Reading, Mass:Addison-Wesley.
19. Nelson, D. E.,Powell-Griner, E,Town, M,Kovar, M. G.(2003).A Comparison of National Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.American Journal of Public Health,93,1335-1341.
20. Nunnally, Jum C.(1978).Psychometric Theory.New York:McGraw Hill.
21. Robinson, J. P.,Shaver, P. R.,Wrightsman, L. S.(1991).Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes.San Diego, CA:Academic Press, Inc.
22. Rubenstein, Sonda Miller(1995).Surveying Public Opinion.Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company.
23. Schuman, Howard,Presser, Stanley(1981).Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context.New York:Academic Press.
24. Sudman, Seymour,Bradburn, Norman M.(1974).Response Effects in Surveys.Chicago:Aldine.
25. Thorndike, Robert L.(ed.)(1971).Educational Measurement.Washington, DC:American Council on Education.
26. 吳統雄(1985)。態度與行為研究的信度與效度：理論、應用、反省。民意學術專刊，29-53。
27. 吳齊殷(1997)。受訪者之訪答效應：施測方法、問卷形式與問題性質。調查研究，4，5-38。
28. 陳順宇(2000)。多變量分析。台北:華泰出版社。
29. 黃紀(2000)。質變數之計量分析。政治學的範圍與方法，台北:
30. 瞿海源(1995)。訪員背景及人格特質對問卷訪談的影響。社會調查與分析：社會科學研究方法檢討與前瞻之一，台北:
31. 簡茂發(1989)。信度與效度。社會及行為科學研究法，台北:
32. 羅國英(1992)。態度調查中的情境效應與受訪者的答題歷程。台北:桂冠出版社。

1. 張恒豪、王靜儀(2016)。從「殘障」到「身心障礙」：障礙標籤與論述的新聞內容分析。台灣社會學，31，1-41。
2. (2018)。媒介他者的正名政治：身心障礙與同志族群比較研究。傳播與社會學刊，44，49-83。