健身運動強度偏好與忍受度問卷（PRETIE-Q）中文版之初步建置

Revision of Preference for and Tolerance of Intensity of Exercise Questionnaire (Pretie-Q) into Chinese Version: The Preliminary Study

10.6695/AUES.200705_96.0054

朱真儀(Chen-Yi Chu)；盧淑雲(Shu-Yun Lu)；林貴福(Kuei-Fu Lin)

運動強度偏好度 ； 運動強度忍受度 ； 探索性因素分析 ； preference for exercise intensity ； tolerance of exercise intensity ； exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

大專體育學術專刊

96年度（2007 / 05 / 01）

337 - 341

繁體中文

目的：本研究旨在修訂Ekkekakis, Hall, and Petruzzello（2005）的健身運動強度偏好與忍受度問卷（Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionnaire, PRETIE-Q）。方法：以217位大學生為研究對象，將研究程序分為四階段依序進行。首先取得原量表作者同意與授權後，按照Jones, Lee, Phillips, Zhang, and Jaceldo（2001）提出的翻譯修正模式，形成中文版問卷初稿，並施測於研究對象，最後再以項目分析及探索性因素分析，進行問卷的初步檢驗。結果：項目分析發現僅第12題未達到理想的鑑別力標準；而探索性因素分析結果，共獲得四個因素，結構上大致與原始量表相符，其中有兩個題項由於因素負荷量過低，考慮予以刪除，整體累積解釋變異量為57.85%，討論：雖然PRETIE-Q中文初版本具備良好的鑑別力，探索性因素分析所得的因素構面，也符合原始量表的內涵，但是有3個題項的指標不甚理想，尚有修正與討論的空間。往後可接續進行驗證性因素分析，並建構更嚴謹的信效度指標，使問卷的信效度更臻理想。

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to revise Ekkekakis, Hall, and Petruzzello's (2005) ”Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionnaire, PRETIE-Q” into Chinese. Method: 217 college students were recruited in this study. The procedure was divided into 4 phases, and executed sequentially. Firstly, we contacted the original authors, and got the permission to translate PRETIE-Q into Chinese version. Secondly, the preliminary version was acquired through the modified translation procedure advocated by Jones, Lee, Phillips, Zhang, and Jaceldo (2001). Thirdly, the preliminary questionnaire was administered by the participants. Lastly, collected data were analyzed by item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Results: The item analysis revealed that almost every item had good discriminatory power except item 12. Besides, EFA extracted 4 factors which was consistent with the original questionnaire, and the cumulative variance was 57.85%. However, there were two items had low factor loading. Discussion: Although the preliminary Chinese version of PRETIE-Q had acceptable critical ratio and factor construct, but three of the items still could be further improved. Moreover, future study could adopt confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and establish more strict indices of reliability and validity to further improve the questionnaire.