【摘要】：研究目的專業(yè)學位研究生是研究生群體中一個重要且特殊的群體。自2009年全日制專業(yè)學位研究生擴招以來,專業(yè)學位研究生教育蓬勃發(fā)展。據(jù)官方數(shù)據(jù)顯示,2015年全日制專業(yè)學位研究生人數(shù)25.2萬人,占碩士研究生總?cè)藬?shù)的44%,專業(yè)學位研究生已成為研究生人群重要組成部分。專業(yè)學位研究生作為高校特殊的、新興的高知群體,在面臨課程學習、課題研究、論文答辯和擇業(yè)就業(yè)等諸多任務的同時,還須參與見習實習,致使課題研究時間大大減少,職業(yè)期望與現(xiàn)實存在一定落差,這無形會給其心理帶來較大影響。部分專業(yè)學位研究生存在焦慮、抑郁等心理疾病,甚至有自殺[1]、傷害他人等破壞社會穩(wěn)定的極端行為[2]。既往研究主要關注學術(shù)學位研究生心理健康,專業(yè)學位研究生研究較少。因此,本研究以專業(yè)學位研究生為研究對象,分析其心理健康特點及影響因素,圍繞該人群心理健康需求,探索專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康教育方案,為專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康教育提供參考。對象和方法整群抽取重慶市三所高校941名專業(yè)學位研究生為研究對象,采用癥狀自評量表(Symptom Checklist 90,SCL-90)、特質(zhì)焦慮問卷(Trait Anxiety Inventory,Form Y-B,T-AI)、焦慮自評量表(Self-rating Anxiety Scale,SAS)、抑郁自評量表(Self-rating Depres-sion Scale,SDS)、艾森克人格問卷(Eysenck Personality Questionnaire,EPQ)、一般自我效能感表(General Self-Efficacy Scale,GSES)、大學生人際關系綜合診斷量表(Interpersonal Comprehensive Diagnostic Scale,ICDS)和人際交往能力問卷(Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire,ICQ)為測評工具,對專業(yè)學位研究生的心理健康狀況、情緒、人格特點、自我效能感、和人際關系進行探討。同時,調(diào)查分析專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康需求特點。在此基礎上通過對專家、導師和研究生咨詢,初步構(gòu)建專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康教育方案。結(jié)果1.專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康特點(1)總體特點:專業(yè)學位研究生心理問題檢出率11.11%;抑郁癥狀陽性率8.5%,焦慮癥狀陽性率2.6%;性格類型:外向型25.08%、中間型51.11%、內(nèi)向型23.81%;情緒穩(wěn)定度:穩(wěn)定型28.25%、中間型49.84%、不穩(wěn)定型21.91%;自信心低的人數(shù)占0.20%,自信心較低15.45%,自信心較高73.37%,自信心高10.98%。(2)性別特點:女性研究生EPQ精神質(zhì)因子得分顯著低于男性(P0.05)。(3)年齡特點:“≥30歲”研究生SCL-90軀體化、強迫、人際敏感、焦慮、敵對、偏執(zhí)、精神病性因子得分和總均分顯著高于“≤24歲”和“25-29歲”(P0.01,0.05),抑郁因子得分顯著高于“≤24歲”(P0.01,P0.05),SAS和SDS得分分別顯著高于“25-29歲”和“≤24歲”組(P0.05),“25-29歲”SAS分顯著高于“≤24歲”(P0.05);“≥30歲”內(nèi)外向因子得分顯著低于“≤24歲”和“25-29歲”。(4)學歷層次特點:博士研究生SCL-90軀體化和強迫因子得分顯著高于碩士(P0.05)。(5)年級特點:三年級研究生SCL-90各因子得分和總均分均顯著高于一年級,敵對、偏執(zhí)因子得分和總均分顯著高于二年級(P0.05);SAS和SDS分顯著高于一年級(P0.05)。(6)子女結(jié)構(gòu)特點:獨生子女研究生EPQ內(nèi)外向因子得分顯著高于非獨生子女(P0.05),掩飾性因子得分顯著低于非獨生子女(P0.05)。(7)環(huán)境適應特點:環(huán)境適應良好的研究生SCL-90各因子得分和總均分,以及TAI、SAS、SDS得分均顯著低于適應較差的研究生(P0.05,0.01),內(nèi)外向和掩飾性因子得分顯著高于適應較差的研究生(P0.05),神經(jīng)質(zhì)因子得分顯著低于適應較差的研究生(P0.05);自我效能感得分顯著高于適應較差的研究生(P0.05);(8)集體氛圍特點:除恐怖因子外,和睦氛圍的研究生SCL-90各因子得分和總均分顯著低于爭吵氛圍(P0.05),TAI、SAS、SDS分顯著高于爭吵氛圍(P0.05),內(nèi)外向因子得分顯著高于爭吵氛圍(P0.05),精神質(zhì)因子得分顯著低于爭吵氛圍(P0.05);和睦氛圍組自我效能感得分顯著高于爭吵氛圍(P0.05)。(9)導師態(tài)度特點:除軀體化和偏執(zhí)因子外,導師關心較多的研究生SCL-90各因子得分和總均分,以及TAI得分顯著低于關心較少的(P0.05);EPQ內(nèi)外向和掩飾性因子得分顯著高于關心較少的研究生(P0.05),神經(jīng)質(zhì)顯著低于關心較少的(P0.05);自我效能感得分顯著高于關心較少的(P0.05)。(10)輔導員態(tài)度特點:輔導員關心較多的自我效能感得分顯著高于關心較少的研究生(P0.05)。(11)同學態(tài)度特點:同學關心較多的研究生自我效能感得分顯著高于關心較少的(P0.05)。(12)人際交往特點:“好朋友3-5個”研究生EPQ精神病性因子得分顯著低于“沒有好朋友”組(P0.05)。2.專業(yè)學位研究生人際關系特點(1)總體特點:人際關系困擾較少占72.15%、輕度困擾17.28%、中度困擾9.96%、重度困擾0.61%;人際交往能力高分組8.94%、一般組63.01%、低分組28.05%。(2)性別特點:男性研究生與異性交往困擾因子得分顯著高于女性(P0.01);男性情感支持因子得分顯著低于女性(P0.01)。(3)子女結(jié)構(gòu)特點:獨生子女研究生人際交往能力總分和人際關心建立、適度拒絕、自我暗示因子得分顯著高于非獨生子女(P0.05,0.01)。(4)家庭結(jié)構(gòu)特點:雙親家庭研究生情感支持因子得分顯著高于單親及其他家庭(P0.05)。(5)環(huán)境適應特點:適應較好的研究生人際困擾總分和各因子得分顯著低于適應較差的研究生(P0.05,0.01);人際交往能力總分和各因子得分均顯著高于適應較差的研究生(P0.05,0.01)。(6)集體氛圍特點:和睦氛圍的研究生人際困擾總分、交際困擾和待人接物困擾因子得分顯著低于爭吵氛圍(P0.05)。(7)導師態(tài)度特點:導師關心較多的人際困擾總分和交談困擾因子得分顯著低于關心較少的研究生;人際交往能力總分和人際關系建立因子得分顯著高于關心較少的(P0.05,0.01)。(8)輔導員態(tài)度特點:輔導員關心較多的人際困擾總分和交談困擾因子得分顯著低于關心較少的(P0.05)。(9)同學態(tài)度特點:同學關心較多的人際困擾總分和交談困擾、交際困擾和待人接物困擾因子得分顯著低于受到關心較少的(P0.05,0.01);人際交往能力總分和各因子得分均顯著高于受到關心較少的研究生(P0.05,0.01)。3.專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康需求特點認為需要心理健康服務的研究生占29.1%。專業(yè)學位研究生最常見的心理問題依次是學習壓力問題(88.3%)、就業(yè)去向問題(60.2%)、情緒問題(58.6%)、情感問題(57.8%)和人際交往問題(54.7%)等。影響專業(yè)學位研究生心理問題的主要因素是學習時間與其它活動時間矛盾(54.0%)、自我調(diào)節(jié)能力差(54.0%)、經(jīng)濟問題(51.6%)、就業(yè)壓力大(42.9%)、對自我的認識不明確(42.1%)、與導師需求矛盾(30.6%)等。專業(yè)學位研究生認為最適合自己的心理健康服務方式為:與心理專業(yè)人員交流(58.2%)、心理健康講座(55.2%)、個別心理咨詢(44.0%)、閱讀影視等(37.3%)、網(wǎng)絡心理咨詢(33.6%)。專業(yè)學位研究生認為最需要開展的心理健康教育內(nèi)容主要是心理矛盾和沖突(61.9%)、情緒與壓力管理(60.4%)、人際交往心理調(diào)適(52.2%)、心理學常識(42.5%)、婚戀心理調(diào)適(41.8%)等。4.專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康教育方案立足專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康特點,結(jié)合心理健康需求,通過對專家、導師和研究生咨詢,構(gòu)建專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康教育方案,共包含1個級指標、10個二級指標和30個三級指標。結(jié)論1.專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康、情緒、人格特點、自我效能感、人際關系存在明顯的人群特點,需關注專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康。2.開展專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康教育應充分考慮該人群的差異性和心理健康需求特點。3.專業(yè)學位研究生心理健康教育方案包含1個級指標、10個二級指標和30個三級指標。
[Abstract]:Professional degree postgraduates are an important and special group of postgraduates. Since the enrollment expansion of full-time professional degree postgraduates in 2009, professional degree postgraduate education has flourished. According to official data, the number of full-time professional degree postgraduates in 2015 was 252,000, accounting for 44% of the total number of postgraduates, and professional science. Graduate students have become an important part of the graduate population. As a special and emerging high-knowledge group in Colleges and universities, professional graduate students have to take part in internship while facing many tasks such as curriculum learning, subject research, thesis defense and employment, resulting in greatly reduced research time, career expectations and reality. Some professional degree postgraduates have anxiety, depression and other psychological diseases, and even have extreme behaviors that destroy social stability, such as suicide [1], hurting others [2]. Past research mainly focused on the mental health of academic degree postgraduates, but less on professional degree postgraduates. This paper analyzes the characteristics and influencing factors of mental health of professional degree postgraduates, explores the mental health education program of professional degree postgraduates around their mental health needs, and provides reference for mental health education of professional degree postgraduates. Subjects were assessed with Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90), Trait Anxiety Inventory (Trait Anxiety Inventory, Form Y-B, T-AI), Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-rating Depres sion Scale (SDS), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), the Interpersonal Comprehensive Diagnostic Scale (ICDS) and the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ) were used to assess the mental health, emotions, personality traits, and self-esteem of professional degree graduates. On this basis, through consultation with experts, tutors and postgraduates, a preliminary mental health education program for professional degree postgraduates was constructed. Results 1. The characteristics of mental health of professional degree postgraduates (1) Overall characteristics: professional degree research The detection rate of psychological problems was 11.11%; the positive rate of depressive symptoms was 8.5%; the positive rate of anxiety symptoms was 2.6%; the personality types: extroversion type 25.08%; intermediate type 51.11%; introversion type 23.81%; emotional stability: stable type 28.25%; intermediate type 49.84%; unstable type 21.91%; low self-confidence was 0.20%; low self-confidence was 15.45%; high self-confidence was 73.37%; high self-confidence was 10.81%; (3) Age characteristics: SCL-90 somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, anxiety, hostility, paranoia, psychotic factor scores and total mean scores were significantly higher than those of'<24 years old'and'<25-29 years old'' (P 0.01, 0.05), and depression factor scores were significant. The scores of SAS and SDS were significantly higher than those of "25-29 years old" and "24 years old" (P 0.05), "25-29 years old" SAS scores were significantly higher than those of "24 years old" (P 0.05); "30 years old" introversion and extroversion factor scores were significantly lower than those of "24 years old" (P 0.05); (4) Educational level characteristics of doctoral students: SCL-90 somatization and "25-29 years old" (P 0.05). The score of obsessive-compulsive factors was significantly higher than that of master's (P 0.05). (5) Grade characteristics: Grade three graduate students'scores of SCL-90 were significantly higher than that of grade one, hostile, paranoid and total mean scores were significantly higher than that of grade two (P 0.05); SAS and SDS scores were significantly higher than that of grade one (P 0.05). (6) Child structure characteristics: Only-child graduate students' EPQ introversion and extroversion. The scores of factors were significantly higher than those of non-only children (P 0.05), and the scores of disguising factors were significantly lower than those of non-only children (P 0.05). (7) Environmental adaptation characteristics: The scores of SCL-90, TAI, SAS and SDS of graduates with good environmental adaptation were significantly lower than those of graduates with poor adaptation (P 0.05, 0.01). The scores of neuroticism factors were significantly higher than those of poorly adapted postgraduates (P 0.05). The scores of self-efficacy were significantly higher than those of poorly adapted postgraduates (P 0.05). (8) Characteristics of collective atmosphere: Except for terror factors, the scores of SCL-90 in harmonious atmosphere were significantly lower than those in arguing atmosphere (P 0.05). TAI, SAS, SDS scores were significantly higher than arguing atmosphere (P 0.05), introversion and extroversion factor scores were significantly higher than arguing atmosphere (P 0.05), psychoticism factor scores were significantly lower than arguing atmosphere (P 0.05); harmony atmosphere group self-efficacy scores were significantly higher than arguing atmosphere (P 0.05). (9) mentors'attitudes: except somatization and paranoia, mentors were more concerned about. The scores of SCL-90 and TAI were significantly lower than those of less caring (P 0.05); the scores of EPQ introversion, extroversion and disguise were significantly higher than those of less caring (P 0.05), and the scores of neuroticism were significantly lower than those of less caring (P 0.05); the scores of self-efficacy were significantly higher than those of less caring (P 0.05). (10) Attitudinal characteristics of counselors: The scores of counselors'self-efficacy with more concern were significantly higher than those with less concern (P 0.05). Good friends group (P 0.05). 2. General characteristics of interpersonal relationship of professional degree graduates (1) General characteristics: less interpersonal distress accounted for 72.15%, mild distress 17.28%, moderate distress 9.96%, severe distress 0.61%; high interpersonal communication ability group 8.94%, general group 63.01%, low group 28.05%. (2) Gender characteristics: male graduate students and heterosexual communication distress factor scores. The score of male emotional support factor was significantly lower than that of female (P 0.01). (3) Children structure characteristics: the total score of interpersonal communication ability and interpersonal care establishment, moderate refusal, self-suggestion factor score was significantly higher than that of non-only children (P 0.05, 0.01). (4) Family structure characteristics: emotional relationship of two-parent family graduate students. The scores of supporting factors were significantly higher than those of single parents and other families (P 0.05). (5) Characteristics of environmental adaptation: The scores of interpersonal distress and other factors of better-adapted postgraduates were significantly lower than those of poorer-adapted postgraduates (P 0.05, 0.01); the scores of interpersonal communication ability and other factors were significantly higher than those of poorer-adapted postgraduates (P 0.05, 0.01). Characteristics: The scores of interpersonal distress, interpersonal distress and interpersonal distress were significantly lower than those of arguing (P (8) Counselors'attitudinal characteristics: Counselors' total scores of interpersonal distress and conversational distress were significantly lower than those with less concern (P 0.05). (9) Students'attitudinal characteristics: students' total scores of interpersonal distress and conversational distress, communication distress and interpersonal distress and interpersonal distress and interpersonal distress and interpersonal distress and interpersonal distress and interpersonal distress and interpersonal distress and interpersonal distress and interpersonal Distr The scores were significantly lower than those of the less concerned (P 0.05, 0.01); the total scores of interpersonal communication ability and the scores of each factor were significantly higher than those of the less concerned postgraduates (P 0.05, 0.01). 3. 29.1% of the postgraduates with professional degrees believed that they needed mental health services according to the characteristics of their mental health needs. The main factors affecting the psychological problems of graduate students are the contradiction between study time and other activities time (54.0%), poor self-regulation ability (54.0%), economic problems (51.6%) and employment pressure (4.0%). Professional degree postgraduates think that the most suitable mental health service is to communicate with psychological professionals (58.2%), give lectures on mental health (55.2%), give individual psychological counseling (44.0%), read movies and television (37.3%) and network psychological counseling (33.6%). Postgraduates believe that the most important contents of mental health education are psychological contradictions and conflicts (61.9%), emotional and stress management (60.4%), interpersonal psychological adjustment (52.2%), psychological common sense (42.5%), marriage and love psychological adjustment (41.8%). According to the needs of mental health, a mental health education program for professional degree postgraduates was constructed by consulting experts, tutors and postgraduates. It contains 1-level indicators, 10 second-level indicators and 30 third-level indicators. Mental health of professional degree postgraduates should be paid attention to. 2. Mental health education of professional degree postgraduates should fully consider the differences and characteristics of their mental health needs. 3. Mental health education program for professional degree postgraduates includes 1-level indicators, 10 second-level indicators and 30 third-level indicators.
【學位授予單位】：第三軍醫(yī)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：G444

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 劉佳;許明星;;研究生社會期望與學業(yè)自我效能感的關系研究——以安徽師范大學為例[J];西昌學院學報(自然科學版);2016年04期

2 陳思思;郭欣雨;姜峰;;碩士生的自我接納與特質(zhì)焦慮:特質(zhì)應對方式的中介作用[J];中國健康心理學雜志;2016年10期

3 朱研;李志平;;醫(yī)學研究生應激與抑郁關系及自我和諧中介作用[J];中國公共衛(wèi)生;2016年06期

4 楊雪花;陳萬明;;不同心理壓力對研究生身心健康的影響[J];中國健康心理學雜志;2016年05期

5 程余慶;;碩士研究生宿舍人際關系矛盾現(xiàn)狀調(diào)查及對策研究[J];現(xiàn)代交際;2016年08期

6 王云波;聶小保;譚萬春;萬俊力;;研究生自我效能感提升研究[J];教育教學論壇;2016年04期

7 郭飛;;全日制專業(yè)學位與學術(shù)學位研究生心理壓力因素對比研究——基于青島農(nóng)業(yè)大學的調(diào)查[J];高等農(nóng)業(yè)教育;2015年10期

8 吉紅;郭耿玉;;全日制專業(yè)學位碩士研究生就業(yè)問題淺析[J];中國青年社會科學;2015年05期

9 張俐;張霞;劉曉雨;靳燦燦;劉云波;王曉霞;;應激事件、負性思維和應對方式對研究生抑郁的預測及影響研究[J];江蘇預防醫(yī)學;2015年03期

10 楊巾夏;陳翠萍;段霞;賀學敏;李艷艷;張志英;蔣金;;護理專業(yè)學位碩士研究生職業(yè)期望與就業(yè)體驗的質(zhì)性研究[J];護理學雜志;2015年07期

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 陳瑞安;杭州市社區(qū)衛(wèi)生服務中心綜合評價指標體系研究[D];浙江大學;2004年

，

本文編號：2215473