论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨应对方式在军人焦虑敏感性与作业疲劳间的多重中介效应。方法选择某陆军部队发放心理问卷《焦虑敏感性指数量表-3》、《简易应对方式量表》和《作业疲劳症状自评量表》,有效回收240份,运用结构方程模型分析变量间关系。结果 1军人作业疲劳在服役年限、是否独生子女、入伍前户籍和文化程度等人口学维度上差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但职别(士兵/士官/干部)维度上差异有统计学意义[F(2,237)=3.087,P=0.047],士兵和士官的疲劳感受度显著高于军人干部[(9.22±3.78)vs(7.31±3.20),LSD-t=1.917,P=0.044;(9.67±3.97)vs(7.31±3.20),LSD-t=2.365,P=0.014]。2高焦虑敏感性军人困倦感、情绪不安感、不快感、怠倦感、视觉疲惫度和总疲惫度高于低焦虑敏感性军人(P<0.001)。3除积极应对和消极应对相关性不显著,焦虑敏感性总分和各因子分、积极应对、消极应对和作业疲劳两两相关(P<0.01);且焦虑敏感性、积极应对方式和消极应对方式可以预测作业疲劳程度,可解释作业疲劳总变异的31.7%。4多重中介效应模型和Bootstrap检验结果显示,焦虑敏感性能够通过积极应付方式和消极应对方式间接影响作业疲劳(χ2/df=1.836,P=0.076,GFI=0.984,AGFI=0.951,NFI=0.979,RFI=0.955,IFI=0.990,TLI=0.979,CFI=0.990,RMSEA=0.059),积极应对、消极应对和总的中介效应效果量分别为18.2%、18.2%和36.4%。结论应对方式在军人焦虑敏感性与作业疲劳间起到并行多重中介作用,应重点关注高焦虑敏感性个体的作业疲劳程度,改善其应对方式,控制作业效能下降。
Objective To explore the multiple mediation effects of coping styles on military anxiety and job fatigue. Methods An army force was selected to issue psychological questionnaires “anxiety-sensitive index scale-3”, “simple coping style scale” and “job fatigue symptoms self-rating scale”, effective recovery of 240 copies, the use of structural equation model analysis of the relationship between variables . Results 1 There was no significant difference in demographics between military service fatigue and length of service, whether or not only child, pre-enumeration and educational level (P> 0.05), but there were differences in the dimensions of soldiers’ / noncommissioned officers / cadres (9.22 ± 3.78) vs (7.31 ± 3.20), LSD-t = 1.917, P = 0.044 (P <0.05), and the difference was statistically significant ; (9.67 ± 3.97) vs (7.31 ± 3.20), LSD-t = 2.365, P = 0.014]. 2 High anxiety sensitivity Military drowsiness, emotional discomfort, displeasure, fatigue, visual fatigue and total fatigue were higher than those with low anxiety sensitivity (P <0.001). (3) There was no significant correlation between positive coping and negative coping (P <0.01); anxiety sensitivity, coping style and negative coping were positive, negative coping and work fatigue The approach predicts job fatigue, accounting for 31.7% of the total variation in job fatigue. 4 Multiple mediation model and Bootstrap test showed that anxiety sensitivity indirectly affected job fatigue through positive coping style and negative coping style (χ2 / df = 1.836, P = 0.076, GFI = 0.984, AGFI = 0.951, NFI = 0.979, RFI = 0.955, IFI = 0.990, TLI = 0.979, CFI = 0.990, RMSEA = 0.059). The response rates of positive coping, negative coping and total mediating effects were 18.2%, 18.2% and 36.4% respectively. Conclusions Coping style plays a parallel multi-agent role in the anxiety and fatigue of servicemen. It is necessary to pay attention to the degree of fatigue of individuals with high anxiety and anxiety and to improve their coping style and control performance.