3.9 Article

Brazilian cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the List of Threatening Events Questionnaire (LTE-Q)

期刊

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE PSIQUIATRIA
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 330-336

出版社

ASSOC BRASILEIRA PSIQUIATRIA
DOI: 10.1590/1516-4446-2016-2132

关键词

Brazil; validation; epidemiology; adverse life events assessment

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To perform a construct validation of the List of Threatening Events Questionnaire (LTE-Q), as well as convergence validation by identifying its association with drug use in a sample of the Brazilian population. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of the Second Brazilian National Alcohol and Drugs Survey (II BNADS), which used a cross-cultural adaptation of the LTE-Q in a probabilistic sample of 4,607 participants aged 14 years and older. Latent class analysis was used to validate the latent trait adversity (which considered the number of events from the list of 12 item in the LTE experienced by the respondent in the previous year) and logistic regression was performed to find its association with binge drinking and cocaine use. Results: The confirmatory factor analysis returned a chi-square of 108.341, weighted root mean square residual (WRMR) of 1.240, confirmatory fit indices (CFI) of 0.970, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of 0.962, and root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) score of 1.000. LTE-Q convergence validation showed that the adversity latent trait increased the chances of binge drinking by 1.31 time and doubled the chances of previous year cocaine use (adjusted by sociodemographic variables). Conclusion: The use of the LTE-Q in Brazil should be encouraged in different research fields, including large epidemiological surveys, as it is also appropriate when time and budget are limited. The LTE-Q can be a useful tool in the development of targeted and more efficient prevention strategies.

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

3.9
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