4.4 Review

Personal Resource Questionnaire: A Systematic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 170-177

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.jnr.0000432049.31921.ab

关键词

personal resource questionnaire; social support; review; measurement

类别

资金

  1. University of Jordan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Social support is a key nursing variable. No review has yet systematically assessed the effectiveness of the personal resource questionnaire (PRQ) as a measure of perceived social support. Purpose: This article reviewed nine previous studies that used the PRQ (Brandt & Weinert, 1981). Methods: Completed studies were identified through searches of indexes that included PubMed, the Cumulative Index for Nursing and EBSCO host, and Ovid. Studies that reported PRQ scores, sample descriptions, and sample sizes and that tested the relationship between the PRQ and study variables were included in the present review. Three other studies were included that did not report on PRQ correlations with other health variables. The included studies addressed a variety of health problems and different population in different settings. Results: Cronbach's alphas for the included studies ranged from. 87 to .93, supporting the internal consistency of the PRQ. Hypothesized relationships between the PRQ and study variables including health promotion behavior, self-care behavior, self-efficacy, self-esteem, stress, depression, loneliness, pain, and disability were supported, providing positive evidence for PRQ construct validity. Included studies used the PRQ to address disparate populations in terms of age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and educational background. Conclusion: This review found the PRQ to be a reliable and valid tool for measuring perceived social support across a wide range of populations. Further studies are necessary to examine the relationship between social support and selected demographics among populations with different cultural backgrounds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据