medigraphic.com
ISSN 0028-3851 (Print)

2006, Number 4

Next >>

Rev Neurol Neurocir Psiquiat 2006; 39 (4)

Factorial validity of a life perception scale applied on a simple of high school students in the state of Mexico, Mexico

Bonilla MMP, Balcázar NP, Gurrola PGM, Vírseda HJA, Trejo GL

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 127-131
PDF size: 46.00 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background. Quality of life is a construct defined according to different points of view. However, it retrieves the idea of a subjective judgment regarding the level of well-being in relation to biological, psychological, behavioral and social indicators encircling the individual.
Objective. To report the factorial validity of a quality of life autoperception in adolescents.
Method. The scale was created by an experts group, wich was was applied to a sample of 462 subjects. Factorial analysis and varimax rotation was carried out.
Results. Internal consistency was 0.92 for the global scale, with an Alpha Coefficient of 0.91 for the personal wellbeing factor and 0.74 for the social wellbeing factor, which explains the 43.20% y 7.14% of the total variance respectively.
Conclusions. The founded factorial structure as well as the internal consistency for this scale shows this scale as a reliable instrument which can be used for the quality of life research in adolescents.


REFERENCES

  1. Rodríguez J, Pastor MA, López S. Afrontamiento, apoyo social, calidad de vida y enfermedad. Psichotema 1993; 5(1); 349-72.

  2. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychological bulletin 1984; 95: 542-75.

  3. Smith A. Quality of life: a review educational ND Ageing. Growing Older Programme Newsletter 2001; 15(3): 2-13.

  4. Del Castillo-Arreola A, Reyes-Lagunes I, Sánchez-Sosa JJ. Intervención cognitivo-conductual para mejorar la adherencia terapéutica y la calidad de vida de un grupo de pacientes con diabetes tipo 2. La psicología social en México. Vol. X. 2004, p. 461-8.

  5. Schuessler K, Fisher G. Quality of life, research and sociology. Annual review of sociology 1985; 11: 129-40.

  6. Bowling A. The most important things in life: comparisons between older and younger populations age group by gender. Results from a national survey of the publics judgments. International Journal of Health Science 1995; 6(4): 160-75.

  7. Chung M, Killingworth A, Nolan P. A critique of the concept of quality life. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 1997; 10(2): 80-4.

  8. Alonso R, Bayarde H, Artiltes L. Construcción de un instrumento para medir la satisfacción personal en mujeres de mediana edad. Revista Cubana de Salud Pública 2004; 30(2): 1-11.

  9. Gómez E. Género, mujer y Salud en las Américas. Washington DC Organización Mundial de la Salud. OMS: USA. 1990.

  10. Botella L. La edad crítica. Barcelona: Salvat; 1990.

  11. Walker A. Understanding quality of life in old age. New York: Two Penn Plaza; 2005.

  12. Varni J, Burwinkle T, Lane M. Health-related quality of measurement in pediatric clinical practice. Health quality of life outcomes 2005; 3(1): 34.

  13. Galbo J. Adolescents perceptions of significant adults: a review of the literature adolescence. 1984; 16: 951-70.

  14. Greenberg M, Siegel J, Leitch C. Nature and importance of attachment relationships to parents and peers. Journal of youth and adolescence 1983; 12: 373-86.

  15. Casullo MM. Las técnicas psicométricas y el diagnóstico psicopatológico. Argentina: Lugar Editorial; 1998ª.

  16. Casullo MM. Adolescentes en riesgo. Identificación y orientación psicológica. México: Paidós: 1998b.

  17. Argyle S. Subjective well-being. New York: Plenum; 1987.

  18. Diener E, Biswas-Diener R. Will money increase subjective well-Being? Social indicators research. 2001, p. 1-51.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com