[Development of the Core Occupational Stress Scale for occupational populations in China].

Objective: To develop the Core Occupational Stress Scale (COSS) for key occupational populations, and to assess the reliability and validity of COSS in China. Methods: According to the literature review, in-depth interview and expert evaluation, the item pool of COSS was established. A total of 20 981 employees (3 703 employees from 2018 and 17 178 employees from 2019) of manufacturing, medical, and traffic polices, etc. from Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing, Jiangsu, Shandong, Zhejiang, Hunan, Guangdong and Hubei were investigated using convenient sampling of those participating in general or occupational health examination of the day. Item differential test and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to screen items from the item pool; confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test structure validity; criterion and convergent validity were tested by Pearson correlation. Cronbach's α coefficient was used to test the reliability of the scale. Results: The EFA suggested a four-factor structure for a 17-item version of COSS, which were social support, organization and reward, demand and effort, and control. It explained 62.06% of the total variance and factor loadings ranged from 0.447 to 0.918. The CFA confirmed the hypothesized four-factor model (GFI=0.904, CFI=0.912, RMSEA=0.079). The COSS scores were positively correlated with burnout, depressive symptoms, and effort-reward imbalance scores with r ranging from 0.357 to 0.567 (P<0.05). The total COSS and each dimension of Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.772-0.896. Conclusions: The COSS has good reliability and validity and can be used as an occupation stress assessment for occupational populations in China.目的： 编制适用于我国重点职业人群的职业紧张测量核心量表，并检验其信度与效度。 方法： 通过文献查阅、深度访谈、专家评议等形成初始量表条目池；分别于2018年7—10月、2019年8—10月，在北京、天津、上海、重庆、江苏、山东、浙江、湖南、广东和湖北等10个省份，采用方便抽样的方法，选择制造业工人、医务人员、交通警察、空乘人员、交通运输业工人作为调查人群，以参与调查当日职业健康检查或机构内部体检的在岗员工作为研究对象进行现场问卷调查。共回收有效问卷20 981份（2018、2019年分别为3 703、17 278份）。采用项目区分度检验、探索性因子分析等对条目池进行筛选，采用验证性因子分析检验量表的结构效度，分别以职业倦怠、抑郁症状和ERI模式职业紧张为校标，采用Pearson相关分析检验量表的校标效度与聚合效度，同时采用Cronbach′s α系数评价量表信度。 结果： 探索性因子分析结果提取社会支持、组织与回报、要求与付出、自主性4个维度，共计17个条目，公因子累计方差贡献率为62.06%，各条目因子载荷系数为0.447~0.918。验证性因素分析上述四个因子模型拟合度较好，拟合优度指数、比较拟合指数、近似误差均方根分别为0.904、0.912和0.079。量表总分与职业倦怠、抑郁症状及付出-回报失衡模式职业紧张得分呈正相关（Pearson相关系数为0.357~0.567，P值均<0.05）。总量表及各维度Cronbach′s α系数为0.772~0.896。 结论： 职业紧张测量核心量表具有较好的信度与效度，可作为我国重点职业人群的职业紧张测量评估工具。.