本文選題：暴力遭遇 + 受害者�。� 參考：《中南大學(xué)》2007年博士論文

【摘要】： 第一章農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇及其危險因素研究 目的: (1)了解農(nóng)村中學(xué)暴力遭遇發(fā)生率,包括總的發(fā)生率以及年齡別、性別發(fā)生率等; (2)了解農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇的流行特征,如暴力遭遇類型、遭遇場所、原因和后果等; (3)了解農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇的危險因素,包括人口學(xué)、行為和社會心理因素等; (4)為農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力干預(yù)提供研究依據(jù)。 方法: 本研究為橫斷面研究,采用WHO暴力遭遇調(diào)查問卷,對隨機選擇的3620名農(nóng)村中學(xué)生進行橫斷面的詢問調(diào)查。采用epidata3.0進行數(shù)據(jù)錄入,應(yīng)用描述性統(tǒng)計方法分析各種類型暴力遭遇發(fā)生率及暴力遭遇特征,x~2檢驗分析各組暴力遭遇發(fā)生率的差別。以農(nóng)村中學(xué)生從小至今或過去一年暴力遭遇作為應(yīng)變量,應(yīng)用logistic回歸模型(Method=BackWard:LR,α_入=0.05,α_出=0.10),以人口學(xué)、行為和社會心理等因素為自變量,篩查可能的危險因素。 結(jié)果: (1)在3620名被調(diào)查者中,41.0%的被調(diào)查者從小至今遭遇暴力,其中,情感暴力、軀體暴力和性暴力遭遇的發(fā)生率分別為27.4%、30.6%和3.2%。33.8%的被調(diào)查者在過去一年中遭遇暴力,其中,情感暴力、軀體暴力和性暴力遭遇的發(fā)生率分別為21.5%、24.3%和2.0%。 (2)男生從小至今和過去一年暴力遭遇發(fā)生率(51.3%和42.9%)高于女生(31.2%和25.3%)(x~2=151.54,P＜0.01和x~2=125.06,P＜0.01)。初中女生從小至今和過去一年暴力遭遇發(fā)生率(34.8%和29.6%)高于高中女生(27.7%和21.1%)(x~2=11.11,P＜0.01和x~2=18.06,P＜0.01);初中男生過去一年暴力遭遇發(fā)生率(45.8%)高于高中男生(39.8%)(x~2=6.50,P＜0.01)。 (3)施暴者中比例最多的是同學(xué)和校友(40.4%),其次是老師(21.3%)和陌生人(20.0%);學(xué)校是暴力遭遇的主要場所(55.7%),其次,放學(xué)途中(17.2%)和游樂場所(12.2%)。暴力遭遇的后果常見為心理傷害(67.9%),其次為皮膚擦(淤)傷(30.7%);僅31.8%受害者遭受暴力事件后尋求他人幫助。 (4)多因素logistic回歸分析結(jié)果表明:從小至今,15-16歲年齡組的農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇的危險性相對較高(OR=1.34,P＜0.01),過去一年,13-14歲和15-16歲年齡組的農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇的危險性相對較高(OR=1.48,P＜0.01;OR=1.57,P＜0.01)。從小至今和過去一年,女生遭遇暴力的危險性低于男生(OR=0.49,P＜0.01和OR=0.51,P＜0.01);經(jīng)常泡網(wǎng)吧者遭遇暴力的危險性高于不或極少泡網(wǎng)吧者(從小至今OR=1.39,P＜0.01和過去一年OR=1.27,P＜0.05,下同);同樣,經(jīng)常玩電游者(OR=1.50,P＜0.05和OR=1.49,P＜0.05)、經(jīng)常吸煙者(OR=1.82,P＜0.05和OR=2.03,P＜0.05)、經(jīng)常欺負(fù)他人者(OR=3.78,P＜0.01和OR=3.28,P＜0.01)、經(jīng)常目睹父母吵架者(OR=1.34,P＜0.05和OR=1.39,P＜0.05)遭遇暴力的危險性均較高。學(xué)習(xí)成績中等者遭遇暴力的危險性相對較高(OR=1.41,P＜0.01和OR=1.44,P＜0.05);自評自尊水平中等和低等者遭遇暴力的危險性高于自評自尊水平高等者(OR=1.48,P＜0.01;OR=1.24,P＜0.05和OR=1.63,P＜0.01;OR=1.36,P＜0.01)。 結(jié)論: (1)農(nóng)村中學(xué)生從小至今遭遇暴力發(fā)生率為41.0%,過去一年中遭遇暴力發(fā)生率為33.8%; (2)施暴者中比例最多的是同學(xué)和校友,其次是老師和陌生人;學(xué)校是暴力遭遇的主要場所,其次,放學(xué)途中和游樂場所。 (3)與農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇有關(guān)的危險因素包括:人口學(xué)因素(如13-14歲和15-16歲年齡、男性)、行為因素(如經(jīng)常泡網(wǎng)吧、玩電游、吸煙、欺負(fù)他人和學(xué)習(xí)成績中等)和社會心理因素(如經(jīng)常目睹父母吵架、自評自尊水平中、低等)。在農(nóng)村中學(xué)生中,應(yīng)針對上述危險因素,開展暴力預(yù)防。 第二章農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇及其行為問題研究 目的: (1)采用Achenbach兒童行為自陳量表(Yourself Report,YSR)評定與分析農(nóng)村中學(xué)生行為問題; (2)探討農(nóng)村中學(xué)生行為問題與暴力遭遇的相互關(guān)系,為農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力“行為干預(yù)”提供科學(xué)依據(jù)。 方法: 本研究采用橫斷面研究方法,對3620名隨機選擇的農(nóng)村中學(xué)生進行問卷調(diào)查。暴力遭遇采用WHO暴力遭遇調(diào)查問卷,農(nóng)村中學(xué)生行為問題評定采用Achenbach兒童行為自陳量表(CBCL)。采用epidata3.0進行數(shù)據(jù)錄入,應(yīng)用描述性統(tǒng)計方法分析暴力遭遇發(fā)生率及行為問題檢出率,x~2檢驗分析組間暴力遭遇發(fā)生率和行為問題檢出率的差別;采用logistic回歸模型(Method=Baek Ward:LR,α_入=0.05,α_出=0.10)分析農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇與行為有關(guān)的危險因素。 結(jié)果: (1)3260名被調(diào)查的農(nóng)村中學(xué)生,1225人(33.8%)在過去一年中經(jīng)歷過暴力遭遇,其中,男生暴力遭遇的發(fā)生率(42.9)高于女生(25.3%),差別具有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(x~2=125.06,P＜0.01);農(nóng)村中學(xué)生總的行為問題檢出率為14.3%(519/3620),暴力遭遇組行為問題檢出率(22.4%)高于非暴力遭遇組(10.9%)(x~2=99.206,P＜0.01),同樣,男生或女生暴力遭遇組行為問題檢出率分別為19.8%和26.1%,均高于非暴力遭遇組(8.7%和11.3%)(x~2=45.551,P＜0.01;x~2=65.161,P＜0.01);農(nóng)村 中學(xué)生暴力遭遇組各行為問題因子,包括退縮、軀體化、焦慮抑郁、社交、思維、注意、違紀(jì)、攻擊、自我身份等9個因子,檢出率分別為4.2%、11.9%、3.8%、6.7%、4.3%、3.5%、5.6%、4.6%和1.9%,均高于非暴力遭遇組(2.1%、5.3%、1.4%、3.1%、1.5%、1.2%、1.9%、0.9%、0.4%和10.2%),且差別均具有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P＜0.05或P＜0.01)。 (2)在logistic逐步回歸分析中,將可能影響農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇的危險因素,如人口學(xué)因素、家庭背景、個人學(xué)習(xí)成績等作為控制變量,結(jié)果顯示:與農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇有關(guān)的行為因子,主要是軀體化(OR=2.16,95%CI:1.57-2.97)、社交(OR=1.88,95%CI:1.18-2.99)、思維(OR=1.94,95%CI:1.05-3.60)、違紀(jì)(OR=2.29,95%CI:1.27-4.16)、攻擊(OR=3.85,95%CI:1.70-8.69)等因子;男生為軀體化(OR=2.13,95%CI:1.26-3.58)、社交(OR=2.25,95%CI:1.05-4.80)、違紀(jì)(OR=2.84,95%CI:1.41-5.71)等因子;女生為軀體化(OR=2.29,95%CI:1.54-3.41)、思維(OR=2.72,95%CI:1.09-6.75)、違紀(jì)(OR=2.81,95%CI:1.05-7.51)、攻擊(OR=16.72,95%CI:3.66-76.35)等因子。 結(jié)論: (1)農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇組行為問題檢出率高于非暴力遭遇組; (2)農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力遭遇與其自身的行為問題有關(guān),與暴力相關(guān)的行為問題因子包括軀體化、社交、思維、違紀(jì)和攻擊等因子; (3)農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力預(yù)防與干預(yù)項目的實施,應(yīng)將有行為問題的農(nóng)村中學(xué)生列入重點人群。 第三章自尊在農(nóng)村中學(xué)生行為與暴力遭遇間的中介效應(yīng) 目的: 探討自尊在農(nóng)村中學(xué)生行為與暴力遭遇間的中介效應(yīng)。 方法: 本研究采用橫斷面研究方法,對3620名隨機選擇的農(nóng)村中學(xué)生進行問卷調(diào)查。暴力遭遇采用WHO暴力遭遇調(diào)查問卷,農(nóng)村中學(xué)生行為問題評定采用Achenbach兒童行為自陳量表(CBCL),自尊水平的評價采用Rosenberg自評量表。相關(guān)分析和多元逐步回歸模型分析各測量變量之間的聯(lián)系,中介效應(yīng)模型和Sobel-Test檢驗驗證中介變量在自變量與應(yīng)變量之間的完全或部分中介效應(yīng)。 結(jié)果: 多元線性逐步回歸分析結(jié)果表明,加入中介變量(自尊),減少行為與暴力遭遇之間的聯(lián)系強度(β從0.232到0.226);Sobel檢驗證實:自尊(中介變量)在行為與暴力遭遇之間起部分中介效應(yīng)(β從0.232到0.226,Sobel-Z value=2.340,P＜0.05);采用同樣的模型,分別對言語、軀體和性暴力遭遇進行分析,結(jié)果表明:自尊(中介變量)在行為與言語暴力遭遇之間起部分中介效應(yīng)(β從0.225到0.200,Sobel-Z value=1.992,P＜0.05);而自尊(中介變量)在行為與軀體暴力或性暴力遭遇之間無中介效應(yīng)。 結(jié)論: 自尊水平在農(nóng)村中學(xué)生行為與暴力遭遇(尤其言語暴力)之間起部分中介效應(yīng)。
[Abstract]:The first chapter is about violent encounter and its risk factors among rural middle school students.
Objective:
(1) to understand the incidence of violence in rural secondary schools, including the total incidence and age, sex incidence, etc.
(2) to understand the epidemiological characteristics of violence among rural middle school students, such as the types of violence encountered, the locations, causes and consequences.
(3) to understand the risk factors of violence among rural middle school students, including demography, behavior and social psychological factors.
(4) to provide evidence for rural middle school students' violent intervention.
Method:
In this study, a cross-sectional study was conducted in a cross-sectional study. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 3620 rural middle school students randomly selected by the questionnaire of WHO violence. Epidata3.0 was used for data entry and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the incidence of various types of violence and the characteristics of violence. The incidence of violence in each group was analyzed by x~2 test. The difference. Using the logistic regression model (Method=BackWard:LR, alpha =0.05, alpha =0.10), and the variables of demography, behavior and social psychology as independent variables, the possible risk factors were screened.
Result:
(1) of the 3620 respondents, 41% of the respondents had been exposed to violence since childhood. Among them, the incidence of emotional violence, physical violence and sexual violence was 27.4%, 30.6% and 3.2%.33.8% were subjected to violence in the past year, of which, the incidence of emotional violence, physical violence and sexual violence was 21.5%, 24.3%, respectively. And 2.0%.
(2) the incidence of violent encounter between young boys and the past year (51.3% and 42.9%) is higher than that of girls (31.2% and 25.3%) (x~2=151.54, P < 0.01 and x~2=125.06, P < 0.01). The incidence of violence encountered by junior high school girls from childhood and past year (34.8% and 29.6%) is higher than that of high school girls (27.7% and 21.1%) (x~2=11.11, P < 0.01 and x~2=18.06, P < < < 42.9%); The incidence of violence among boys in the past year (45.8%) was higher than that in high school boys (39.8%) (x~2=6.50, P < 0.01).
(3) among the perpetrators, the most proportions were students and alumni (40.4%), followed by teachers (21.3%) and strangers (20%); school was the main place for violence (55.7%), second, on the way (17.2%) and amusement place (12.2%). The consequences of violence were common to psychological injury (67.9%), followed by skin rubbing (30.7%); only 31.8% victims suffered. Seek help from others after the violence.
(4) the results of multiple factor Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of violence encountered by rural middle school students in the 15-16 year old age group was relatively high (OR=1.34, P < 0.01). The risk of violence in rural middle school students at 13-14 and 15-16 years old was relatively high (OR=1.48, P < 0.01; OR=1.57, P < 0.01) in the past year. One year, the risk of violence was lower than that of boys (OR=0.49, P < 0.01 and OR=0.51, P < 0.01); the risk of frequent Internet cafe victims was higher than that of Internet cafes (OR=1.39, P < 0.01 and OR=1.27 in the past year, P < 0.05, the same below); also, often playing electric visitors (OR=1.50, P < 0.05 and OR=1.49, P < 0.05). Regular smokers (OR=1.82, P < 0.05 and OR=2.03, P < 0.05) often bullied others (OR=3.78, P < 0.01 and OR=3.28, P < 0.01), and often witnessed parents' quarrels (OR=1.34, P < 0.05 and OR=1.39, P < 0.05) with higher risk of violence. 5): the risk of violence was higher than those of self self esteem (OR=1.48, P < 0.01; OR=1.24, P < 0.05 and OR=1.63, P < 0.01; OR=1.36, P < 0.01).
Conclusion:
(1) the incidence of violence among rural middle school students has been 41% since childhood. The incidence of violence in the past year was 33.8%.
(2) most of the perpetrators were classmates and alumni, followed by teachers and strangers; schools were the main places for violence, followed by school trips and playgrounds.
(3) the risk factors associated with rural middle school students' violence include demographic factors (such as 13-14 years and 15-16 years of age, male), behavioral factors (such as regular Internet cafes, playing electricity, smoking, bullying others and middle school grades) and sociopsychological factors (such as witnessing parents quarreling, self-evaluation, low level, low). Among rural middle school students, The prevention of violence should be carried out in view of the above risk factors.
The second chapter is about violent encounter and behavior problems of rural middle school students.
Objective:
(1) Achenbach Yourself Report (YSR) was used to assess and analyze behavioral problems of rural middle school students.
(2) to explore the relationship between behavior problems and violence in rural middle school students, so as to provide a scientific basis for violence intervention among rural middle school students.
Method:
In this study, a cross-sectional study was used to conduct a questionnaire survey on 3620 rural middle school students randomly selected. Violence encountered a questionnaire of WHO violence. The behavior problems of rural middle school students were assessed by Achenbach children's behavior self scale (CBCL). Epidata3.0 was used to record a number of data, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the violence suffered. The incidence rate of occurrence and the detection rate of behavior problems, the difference between the incidence of violent encounter and the detection rate of behavior problems between groups were analyzed by x~2 test, and the risk factors related to violence and behavior in rural middle school students were analyzed by logistic regression model (Method=Baek Ward:LR, =0.05 and =0.10).
Result:
(1) 3260 rural middle school students who were investigated and 1225 (33.8%) experienced violence in the past year. Among them, the incidence of violence in boys (42.9) was higher than that of girls (25.3%). The difference was statistically significant (x~2=125.06, P < 0.01); the prevalence rate of behavior problems in rural middle school students was 14.3% (519/3620), and the behavior problems of violence encounter group were detected. The rate (22.4%) was higher than that of non violent encounter group (10.9%) (x~2=99.206, P < 0.01). Similarly, the detection rates of behavioral problems in boys and girls were 19.8% and 26.1%, respectively, higher than those of non violent encounter groups (8.7% and 11.3%) (x~2=45.551, P < 0.01; x~2=65.161, P < 0.01);
9 factors, such as withdrawal, somatization, anxiety and depression, social, thinking, attention, discipline, aggression, self identity, were 4.2%, 11.9%, 3.8%, 6.7%, 4.3%, 3.5%, 5.6%, 4.6% and 1.9%, respectively, and were all higher than those in the non violent encounter group. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01).
(2) in the logistic stepwise regression analysis, the risk factors that may affect the violence encountered in rural middle school students, such as demographic factors, family background and personal learning achievement, are used as control variables. The results show that the behavioral factors related to the violence encounter in rural middle school students are mainly somatization (OR=2.16,95%CI:1.57-2.97) and social (OR=1.88,95%CI:1.1 8-2.99), thinking (OR=1.94,95%CI:1.05-3.60), OR=2.29,95%CI:1.27-4.16, attack (OR=3.85,95%CI:1.70-8.69) and other factors; boys are OR=2.13,95%CI:1.26-3.58, OR=2.25,95%CI:1.05-4.80, OR=2.84,95%CI:1.41-5.71 and other factors; girls are somatization (OR=2.29,95%CI:1.54-3.41), thinking (OR=2.72,95%CI:1.09). -6.75), violation of discipline (OR=2.81,95%CI:1.05-7.51), attack (OR=16.72,95%CI:3.66-76.35) and other factors.
Conclusion:
(1) the prevalence rate of group violence problems among rural middle school students was higher than that of non violent group.
(2) the violence encountered by the rural middle school students is related to their own behavior problems, and the factors related to violence include somatization, social social, thinking, violation of discipline and attack.
(3) the implementation of violence prevention and intervention program for rural middle school students should include rural middle school students with behavioral problems in key groups.
The third chapter is about the mediating effect of self-esteem on behavior and violence in rural middle school students.
Objective:
To explore the mediating effect of self-esteem on behavior and violence in rural middle school students.
Method:
In this study, a cross-sectional study was used to conduct a questionnaire survey on 3620 rural middle school students randomly selected. The violence encountered a questionnaire of WHO violence. The behavior problems of rural middle school students were evaluated by Achenbach children's behavior self scale (CBCL), the self-respect level was assessed by the Rosenberg self rating scale. The regression model is used to analyze the relationship between the variables, and the mediator effect model and the Sobel-Test test verify the complete or partial mediator effect between the variable and the independent variable.
Result:
Multiple linear stepwise regression analysis showed that the connection intensity between behavior and violence was reduced by adding intermediary variables (self-esteem) (beta from 0.232 to 0.226); Sobel test confirmed that self esteem (intermediary variable) played a partial mediating effect between behavior and violence (beta from 0.232 to 0.226, Sobel-Z value=2.340, P < 0.05); the same model was used. The analysis of speech, body and sexual violence showed that self-esteem (intermediary variable) played a partial mediating effect between behavior and verbal violence (beta from 0.225 to 0.200, Sobel-Z value=1.992, P < 0.05), and self esteem (intermediary variable) had no mediator effect between behavior and somatic violence or sexual violence.
Conclusion:
Self esteem level plays a mediating role between rural middle school students' behavior and violence (especially verbal violence).
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號】：G637;R181.3

【引證文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 陳道ng;姚玉華;俞愛青;周峰;劉慶元;李瑞昌;;家庭環(huán)境與社區(qū)青少年暴力攻擊行為的關(guān)系及影響因素分析[J];現(xiàn)代預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué);2011年14期

2 姚玉華;陳道ng;周峰;劉慶元;;父母教養(yǎng)方式與社區(qū)青少年暴力攻擊行為的關(guān)系[J];中國學(xué)校衛(wèi)生;2010年09期

3 陳道ng;姚玉華;周峰;劉慶元;;有暴力攻擊行為青少年暴力性傷害流行特征分析[J];中國學(xué)校衛(wèi)生;2010年12期

4 姚玉華;陳道ng;周峰;劉慶元;;社區(qū)青少年暴力行為與兒童期被教師虐待經(jīng)歷的關(guān)系[J];中國學(xué)校衛(wèi)生;2011年07期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 陳道ng;社區(qū)青少年暴力的成因及社會干預(yù)模式研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

2 康雪琴;元情緒能力訓(xùn)練對中學(xué)生暴力干預(yù)效果研究[D];山西大學(xué);2012年

3 高麗娜;農(nóng)村中學(xué)生暴力行為的調(diào)查及干預(yù)研究[D];山西大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：2097030