大学新生的角色适应与心理健康研究
摘要
大学新生是指大学一年级的学生。对于大学新生来说,作为大学生这一新角色的初始承担者,适应问题虽然是一个必然的现象,但是不同的学生的主观反应却又不同。以往研究显示,他们的心理健康状况不容乐观,并且呈现出一定的特点。因此,对大学新生心理健康状况及影响因素的探讨具有重要的意义。本研究认为角色适应是影响大学新生心理健康的一个关键因素,角色适应是指个体为与其所承担的新角色或所处的新环境保持和谐状态,而采取的心理调适及行为反应。本研究的目的之一就是编制《大学新生角色适应问卷》,并且运用自编问卷对大学新生的适应问题进行测查,以探讨大学新生的适应情况。同时,运用《大学生人格健康调查表》(UPI)对大学新生的心理健康进行考查,以了解大学新生的心理健康状况,并探讨角色适应与心理健康的关系,为进一步研究大学生的心理健康问题,提供新的视角和工具。
在对大学新生深度访谈的基础上,结合心理咨询实践,编制出“大学新生角色适应初测问卷”。经过探索性因素分析确定了问卷因素结构,通过验证性因素分析进行检验,并对初始模型加以修正,最后形成了《大学新生角色适应问卷》。采用《大学生人格健康调查表》和自编的《大学新生角色适应问卷》对676名大学新生进行测查,了解大学新生的角色适应特点和心理健康状况,并通过相关分析和回归分析探讨大学新生角色适应与心理健康的关系,结果表明:
1.编制的《大学新生角色适应问卷》共34个题项,由一般角色适应性、地位角色适应性、人际角色适应性、经济角色适应性、生活角色适应性5个因子构成,能解释总变异量的46.65%;问卷总的内部一致性信度系数为0.90,各维度的内部一致性信度系数在0.69～0.81之间,各维度间的相关系数在0.21～0.72之间,各维度与总分的相关系数在0.60～0.79之间;修正模型的拟合指数χ2/df为3.20,RMSEA为0.06,NFI为0.91,NNFI为0.93,CFI为0.94,表明问卷具有好的信度和效度,可以用来研究大学新生的角色适应问题。
2.大学新生角色适应总均分为3.38,表明大学新生总体适应情况较好;其中,生活角色适应性维度的均分最高为3.95,而一般角色适应性维度均分最低为2.84;大学新生角色适应存在着生源、学校、是否独生子女的显著性差异,不同生源的学生在经济角色适应性和生活角色适应性维度上存在显著差异,表现为来自城市、城镇的学生在经济角色适应性上好于来自农村的学生(p<0.001);而在生活角色适应性上,来自农村、城镇的学生好于来自城市的学生(p<0.001);不同学校的新生,除经济角色适应性维度外,在其他各维度的差异均达到显著水平,其中,在一般角色适应性上,财经类学校与师范类学校差异达到了显著水平(p<0.05);在地位角色适应性上,财经类学校的均分高于师范类和医学类学校,且都达到了显著水平(p<0.001);在人际角色适应性上,综合类学校、财经类学校的均分均显著高于师范类学校(p<0.001);而在生活角色适应性维度上,师范类、财经类、综合类学校的均分均显著高于医学类学校(p<0.001)。
3.大学新生总体心理健康状况较好,总体UPI得分平均分为13.43,UPIⅠ类学生筛选率是28.34%,UPIⅡ类学生的筛选率为32.05%,UPIⅢ类学生的筛选率为39.61%;大学新生的心理问题集中表现在自我否定、缺乏自信、过于担忧、强迫症倾向、情绪不稳定;大学新生心理健康状况在性别、学校、是否独生子女、学生来源、是否学生干部方面的差异无统计学意义。
4.大学新生角色适应各维度及总均分与心理健康具有极显著的负相关关系(P<0.01);UPI三类水平的大学新生,角色适应也存在极显著差异(p<0.001),表现为角色适应性越好,心理健康水平越高;将大学新生角色适应得分分为高分组和低分组两组,其UPI均分差异也达到了极显著水平(p<0.001);总之,角色适应性好的大学新生心理越健康;大学新生角色适应对心理健康具有一定的预测作用,角色适应的4个因子逐步进入回归方程,依次是地位角色适应性、人际角色适应性、一般角色适应性、经济角色适应性,能联合预测UPI总分31.8%的变异量。
Freshmen to be pointed as those who are in the course of fitting the lifestyle and study of university in order to achieve the conformance with one’s own individual and environment. It is a kind of inevitable problem to freshmen who act as an incipient undertaker. But their subjective reactions were not same to the different individuals. And their mental health presented some certain feature. So there had significant meaning to investigate the freshmen’s mental health and its influencing factor. Role adjustment is a kind way of mental adaptation and behavior reaction that individuals make use of it in order to keep the balance and harmony with the new role they take or the new environment they stay. And role adjustment is the key affect factor of freshmen’s mental health. To develop The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire that was based on the freshmen’s mental health was one of the objectives of this research. Using The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire to measure the freshmen’s role adjustment in order to investigate freshmen’s adaptation. And using UPI to inquiry the freshmen’s mental health so that we could learn the situation of the freshmen’s health. In the same way we could know the relationship between the freshmen’s role adjustment and their mental health. This way could supply a new visual perspective and means to investigate university student’s mental health and had theoretical and practical significance. After investigating 676 freshmen with The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire and The University Personality Inventory, The results showed that:
1. The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire was consisted of general role, status role, relationship role, economic role, and life role, and had 34 items. That could explain 46.65% variation. The whole consistent reliability coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.90; the interval of factors’consistent reliability coefficient was 0.69-0.81. The interval of the factors’correlation coefficient was 0.21-0.72; the interval of correlation coefficient between total score and factors was 0.60-0.79. The fitting index of the amended model:χ2/df was 3.20, RMSEA was 0.06, NFI was 0.91, NNFI was 0.93, and CFI was 0.94. The goodness of fit indicated that The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire had content validity. It was showed that the questionnaire had acceptable credibility also from the reliability analysis. And the questionnaire could be used to investigate the freshmen’s adjustment.
2. The average of The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire was 3.38. It indicated that the freshmen’s adjustment were well. The average of life role was the highest, it was 3.95. And the average of the general role was the lowest, it was 2.84. There had significant differences on universities, where the freshmen come from and whether they are one-child of the family. It showed evident differences of where the freshmen come from on the dimension of economic role and life role. The students’role adjustment who come from city and town were better than that come from country on the dimension of economic role; and the students’role adjustment who come from country were better than that come from city and town on the dimension of life role. Significant differences of universities existed on the four dimensions except for economic role. The average of finance & economics university were higher than that of normal university on the dimension of general role; the average of finance & economics university were higher than that of normal and medical universities on the dimension of status role; the average of multiversity and finance & economics university were higher than that of normal university on the dimension of relationship role; the average of normal, finance & economics university and multiversity were higher than that of medical university on the dimension of life role. There had clear differences of whether they are one-child of the family on the dimension of status role except for other four dimensions. In short, the freshmen’s role adjustment of finance & Economics Universities was best, that of normal university was worst. The freshmen’s role adjustment of medical university was worse on the dimension of status and life role.
3. The whole average of the UPI was 13.43; the percentages of UPIⅠ, UPIⅡand UPIⅢwere 28.34%, 32.05% and 39.61%. The main mental problems registered as self-negative, be absent of self-confidence, be too-worry, compulsion tendency, and emotionality. The freshmen’s mental health had no significant differences in sexes, universities, whether they are one-child of the family, where they come from, and whether they are cadre of the students.
4. The freshmen’s role adjustment had obvious negative correlations with mental health. The more the freshmen’s role adjustment was better the more their mental health was well; It could be proved from the clear differences between the high score group and the low score group of the freshmen’s role adjustment also. The further regression analysis indicated that the freshmen’s role adjustment could forecast 31.8% variance of UPI. They were status role, relationship role, general role, and economic role in turn.
在对大学新生深度访谈的基础上,结合心理咨询实践,编制出“大学新生角色适应初测问卷”。经过探索性因素分析确定了问卷因素结构,通过验证性因素分析进行检验,并对初始模型加以修正,最后形成了《大学新生角色适应问卷》。采用《大学生人格健康调查表》和自编的《大学新生角色适应问卷》对676名大学新生进行测查,了解大学新生的角色适应特点和心理健康状况,并通过相关分析和回归分析探讨大学新生角色适应与心理健康的关系,结果表明:
1.编制的《大学新生角色适应问卷》共34个题项,由一般角色适应性、地位角色适应性、人际角色适应性、经济角色适应性、生活角色适应性5个因子构成,能解释总变异量的46.65%;问卷总的内部一致性信度系数为0.90,各维度的内部一致性信度系数在0.69～0.81之间,各维度间的相关系数在0.21～0.72之间,各维度与总分的相关系数在0.60～0.79之间;修正模型的拟合指数χ2/df为3.20,RMSEA为0.06,NFI为0.91,NNFI为0.93,CFI为0.94,表明问卷具有好的信度和效度,可以用来研究大学新生的角色适应问题。
2.大学新生角色适应总均分为3.38,表明大学新生总体适应情况较好;其中,生活角色适应性维度的均分最高为3.95,而一般角色适应性维度均分最低为2.84;大学新生角色适应存在着生源、学校、是否独生子女的显著性差异,不同生源的学生在经济角色适应性和生活角色适应性维度上存在显著差异,表现为来自城市、城镇的学生在经济角色适应性上好于来自农村的学生(p<0.001);而在生活角色适应性上,来自农村、城镇的学生好于来自城市的学生(p<0.001);不同学校的新生,除经济角色适应性维度外,在其他各维度的差异均达到显著水平,其中,在一般角色适应性上,财经类学校与师范类学校差异达到了显著水平(p<0.05);在地位角色适应性上,财经类学校的均分高于师范类和医学类学校,且都达到了显著水平(p<0.001);在人际角色适应性上,综合类学校、财经类学校的均分均显著高于师范类学校(p<0.001);而在生活角色适应性维度上,师范类、财经类、综合类学校的均分均显著高于医学类学校(p<0.001)。
3.大学新生总体心理健康状况较好,总体UPI得分平均分为13.43,UPIⅠ类学生筛选率是28.34%,UPIⅡ类学生的筛选率为32.05%,UPIⅢ类学生的筛选率为39.61%;大学新生的心理问题集中表现在自我否定、缺乏自信、过于担忧、强迫症倾向、情绪不稳定;大学新生心理健康状况在性别、学校、是否独生子女、学生来源、是否学生干部方面的差异无统计学意义。
4.大学新生角色适应各维度及总均分与心理健康具有极显著的负相关关系(P<0.01);UPI三类水平的大学新生,角色适应也存在极显著差异(p<0.001),表现为角色适应性越好,心理健康水平越高;将大学新生角色适应得分分为高分组和低分组两组,其UPI均分差异也达到了极显著水平(p<0.001);总之,角色适应性好的大学新生心理越健康;大学新生角色适应对心理健康具有一定的预测作用,角色适应的4个因子逐步进入回归方程,依次是地位角色适应性、人际角色适应性、一般角色适应性、经济角色适应性,能联合预测UPI总分31.8%的变异量。
Freshmen to be pointed as those who are in the course of fitting the lifestyle and study of university in order to achieve the conformance with one’s own individual and environment. It is a kind of inevitable problem to freshmen who act as an incipient undertaker. But their subjective reactions were not same to the different individuals. And their mental health presented some certain feature. So there had significant meaning to investigate the freshmen’s mental health and its influencing factor. Role adjustment is a kind way of mental adaptation and behavior reaction that individuals make use of it in order to keep the balance and harmony with the new role they take or the new environment they stay. And role adjustment is the key affect factor of freshmen’s mental health. To develop The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire that was based on the freshmen’s mental health was one of the objectives of this research. Using The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire to measure the freshmen’s role adjustment in order to investigate freshmen’s adaptation. And using UPI to inquiry the freshmen’s mental health so that we could learn the situation of the freshmen’s health. In the same way we could know the relationship between the freshmen’s role adjustment and their mental health. This way could supply a new visual perspective and means to investigate university student’s mental health and had theoretical and practical significance. After investigating 676 freshmen with The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire and The University Personality Inventory, The results showed that:
1. The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire was consisted of general role, status role, relationship role, economic role, and life role, and had 34 items. That could explain 46.65% variation. The whole consistent reliability coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.90; the interval of factors’consistent reliability coefficient was 0.69-0.81. The interval of the factors’correlation coefficient was 0.21-0.72; the interval of correlation coefficient between total score and factors was 0.60-0.79. The fitting index of the amended model:χ2/df was 3.20, RMSEA was 0.06, NFI was 0.91, NNFI was 0.93, and CFI was 0.94. The goodness of fit indicated that The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire had content validity. It was showed that the questionnaire had acceptable credibility also from the reliability analysis. And the questionnaire could be used to investigate the freshmen’s adjustment.
2. The average of The Freshmen’s Role Adjustment Questionnaire was 3.38. It indicated that the freshmen’s adjustment were well. The average of life role was the highest, it was 3.95. And the average of the general role was the lowest, it was 2.84. There had significant differences on universities, where the freshmen come from and whether they are one-child of the family. It showed evident differences of where the freshmen come from on the dimension of economic role and life role. The students’role adjustment who come from city and town were better than that come from country on the dimension of economic role; and the students’role adjustment who come from country were better than that come from city and town on the dimension of life role. Significant differences of universities existed on the four dimensions except for economic role. The average of finance & economics university were higher than that of normal university on the dimension of general role; the average of finance & economics university were higher than that of normal and medical universities on the dimension of status role; the average of multiversity and finance & economics university were higher than that of normal university on the dimension of relationship role; the average of normal, finance & economics university and multiversity were higher than that of medical university on the dimension of life role. There had clear differences of whether they are one-child of the family on the dimension of status role except for other four dimensions. In short, the freshmen’s role adjustment of finance & Economics Universities was best, that of normal university was worst. The freshmen’s role adjustment of medical university was worse on the dimension of status and life role.
3. The whole average of the UPI was 13.43; the percentages of UPIⅠ, UPIⅡand UPIⅢwere 28.34%, 32.05% and 39.61%. The main mental problems registered as self-negative, be absent of self-confidence, be too-worry, compulsion tendency, and emotionality. The freshmen’s mental health had no significant differences in sexes, universities, whether they are one-child of the family, where they come from, and whether they are cadre of the students.
4. The freshmen’s role adjustment had obvious negative correlations with mental health. The more the freshmen’s role adjustment was better the more their mental health was well; It could be proved from the clear differences between the high score group and the low score group of the freshmen’s role adjustment also. The further regression analysis indicated that the freshmen’s role adjustment could forecast 31.8% variance of UPI. They were status role, relationship role, general role, and economic role in turn.
引文
[1]陈赋光.大学生感知的校风及其与心理健康研究[D].桂林:广西师范大学,2007.
[2]陈君.《大学新生学校适应自评量表》的编制及信度和效度检验[J].咸宁学院学报,2006,1:94-97.
[3]陈建绩,陈会昌.对中小学生的气质、心理适应性和意志品质的测试分析[J].教育理论与实践,1988,4:26-30.
[4]邓百祥.少数昔日优等生的角色更替与适应[J].韶关大学学报,1997,3:162-166.
[5]邓远平,肖三蓉,雷良忻.大学生应付方式与心理健康关系的探讨[J].中国校医,2005, 5:483-485.
[6]丁吉红.西北高校大学生心理健康状况调查与分析[J].宜春学院学报,2006,4:154- 157.
[7]杜天娇,于娜,郭武军.医科大学新生人际关系与心理健康关系研究[J].西北医学教育, 2007,2:114-116.
[8]冯廷勇,李红.当代大学生学习适应的初步研究[J].心理学探新,2002,1:44-48.
[9]傅茂笋,寇增强.大学生适应量表的初步编制[J].中国心理卫生杂志,2004,9:635-637.
[10]高永飞.关于大学新生心理适应问题的几点思考[J].高教研究,2006,9:28-29.
[11]韩丕国.大学生的自卑心理:基于社会比较的研究[D].桂林:广西师范大学,2006.
[12]郝文清.大学新生环境适应问题与应对措施[J].中国高教研究,2006,2:87-88.
[13]黄万琪,周威,程清洲.大学生社会支持及应付方式与心理健康水平分析[J].中国公共卫生,2006,2:139-140.
[14]黄希庭.校风班风与人格发展[M].北京:新华出版社,2001:17.
[15]黄希庭,郑涌,李宏翰.学生健全人格养成教育的心理学观点[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,3:90-94.
[16]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2004: 156-157.
[17]贾远娥,李宏翰.大学生的理想-现实自我差异及其与抑郁的关系[J].社会心理科学,2007,1-2:182-186.
[18]金伟,周侍美.惠州学院 05 级新生 UPI 问卷调查报告[J].惠州学院学报,2007,2:100- 104.
[19]李宏翰.角色改变与心理健康[A].见:黄希庭,郑涌.大学生心理健康与咨询[M](第二 版).北京:高等教育出版社,2007:193-213.
[20]李宏翰,赵崇莲.大学生的人际关系:基于心理健康的分析[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004,1:116-121.
[21]李慧民,徐玉芳.河南省大学生心理健康状况调查研究[J].中国公共卫生,2003,10: 1192-1193.
[22]李辉,朱丽芬,李梅.大学生学校适应性研究综述[J].云南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,2:125-127.
[23]李可信.山东省大学生心理健康状况调查研究[J].临沂师范学院学报,2005,1:49-52.
[24]梁清山.不同经济状况高职学生适应性差异比较研究[J].辽宁教育研究,2006,3:25-26.
[25]林崇德,杨治良,黄希庭.心理学大词典[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2004:1155.
[26]柳春香,任泽港,江雅利.大学新生适应性与社会支持的关系研究[J].高校保健医学研究与实践,2006,3:10-13.
[27]卢谢峰.大学生适应性量表的编制与标准化[D].武汉:华中师范大学,2003.
[28]罗道全,李玲.大学新生心理健康状况调查[J].教育与现代化,2005,1:56-59.
[29]马小明,徐宪春.自我同一性与大学生心理健康分析[J].中国高教研究,2005,5:46-47.
[30]彭晓玲,周仲瑜,柏伟等.人学生价值观与心理健康相关性调查分析[J].重庆科技学院学报(社会科学版),2005,2:62-66.
[31]覃干超,欧阳丹.高师院校新生 UPI 调查分析[J].高教论坛,2006,4:148-150.
[32]陶沙.从生命全程发展观论大学生入学适应[J].北京师范大学学报,2000,2:81-87.
[33]淘沙.社会支持与大学生入学适应关系的研究[J].心理科学,2003,5:908-909.
[34]汪小容.大学新生心理适应问题及对策研究[J].西南交通大学学报,2001,4:100-103.
[35]王明粤.运用 UPI 量表对高校新生的心理状况分析-以广东技术师范学院为例[J].广东技术师范学院学报,2007,3:97-99.
[36]王强,王汝芬,张雪莉等.大学新生心理健康状况调查分析[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2007,9:786-787.
[37]王维杰.大学新生人际适应问题的调研[J].思想教育研究,2006,1:43-44.
[38]王永和.谈大学生心理健康的重要性 [J].中国高教研究,2004,4.
[39]王玉.一年级大学生心理健康状况的分析与研究[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2006,6: 630-632.
[40]肖海鸥.贫困大学生心理健康状况、应付方式与学习成绩研究[J].中国健康教育,2007,2:100-102.
[41]肖琼,肖玮.大学生心理适应过程的验证[J].第四军医大学学报,2006,4:338-340.
[42]谢维营.正确价值观的培养与大学生心理健康教育[J].广播电视大学学报,2005,5: 35.
[43]熊燕,彭萍,胡一秋.大学生新生心理健康状况调查与分析[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2006,6:612-615.
[44]徐富明,于鹏,李美华.大学生的学习适应性及其与人格特征及社会支持的关系研究[J].中国学校卫生,2005,4:299-300.
[45]阳德华,高和平.大学毕业生心理健康与应付方式的相关研究[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2006,3:283-285.
[46]杨茉莉.浅谈大学生的心理问题[J].西南科技大学高教研究,2005,3:168-169.
[47]叶海燕.大学新生心理健康状况调查研究[J].西南师范大学学报,2003,5:794-797.
[48]叶景山.大学生自我同一性、自尊与心理健康的相关研究[J].中国学校卫生,2006,10: 896-897.
[49]于晓波.大学新生适应性与人格的研究[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2007,5:415-417.
[50]张建梅.影响大学生人际关系的主观因素:基于心理健康的研究[D].桂林:广西师范大学,2006.
[51]张雨新,王燕.归因方式和抑郁[J].心理学报,1989,2:141-148.
[52]赵崇莲,王晓彦,许学华.当代大学生心理健康研究述要[J].宁波大学学报(教育科学版),2006,6:24-27.
[53]赵富才.大学新生心理适应问题研究[J].健康心理学杂志,1999,4:397.
[54]周帆,王登峰.外显和内隐自尊与心理健康的关系[J].中国心理卫生杂志,2005,3: 197-199.
[55]朱丽芬.云南省大学生学校适应性状况及其影响因素的模型建构[D].昆明:云南师范大学,2006.
[56]朱韶蓁.大学生适应性量表(CAS)的修订及应用研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2006.
[2]陈君.《大学新生学校适应自评量表》的编制及信度和效度检验[J].咸宁学院学报,2006,1:94-97.
[3]陈建绩,陈会昌.对中小学生的气质、心理适应性和意志品质的测试分析[J].教育理论与实践,1988,4:26-30.
[4]邓百祥.少数昔日优等生的角色更替与适应[J].韶关大学学报,1997,3:162-166.
[5]邓远平,肖三蓉,雷良忻.大学生应付方式与心理健康关系的探讨[J].中国校医,2005, 5:483-485.
[6]丁吉红.西北高校大学生心理健康状况调查与分析[J].宜春学院学报,2006,4:154- 157.
[7]杜天娇,于娜,郭武军.医科大学新生人际关系与心理健康关系研究[J].西北医学教育, 2007,2:114-116.
[8]冯廷勇,李红.当代大学生学习适应的初步研究[J].心理学探新,2002,1:44-48.
[9]傅茂笋,寇增强.大学生适应量表的初步编制[J].中国心理卫生杂志,2004,9:635-637.
[10]高永飞.关于大学新生心理适应问题的几点思考[J].高教研究,2006,9:28-29.
[11]韩丕国.大学生的自卑心理:基于社会比较的研究[D].桂林:广西师范大学,2006.
[12]郝文清.大学新生环境适应问题与应对措施[J].中国高教研究,2006,2:87-88.
[13]黄万琪,周威,程清洲.大学生社会支持及应付方式与心理健康水平分析[J].中国公共卫生,2006,2:139-140.
[14]黄希庭.校风班风与人格发展[M].北京:新华出版社,2001:17.
[15]黄希庭,郑涌,李宏翰.学生健全人格养成教育的心理学观点[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,3:90-94.
[16]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2004: 156-157.
[17]贾远娥,李宏翰.大学生的理想-现实自我差异及其与抑郁的关系[J].社会心理科学,2007,1-2:182-186.
[18]金伟,周侍美.惠州学院 05 级新生 UPI 问卷调查报告[J].惠州学院学报,2007,2:100- 104.
[19]李宏翰.角色改变与心理健康[A].见:黄希庭,郑涌.大学生心理健康与咨询[M](第二 版).北京:高等教育出版社,2007:193-213.
[20]李宏翰,赵崇莲.大学生的人际关系:基于心理健康的分析[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2004,1:116-121.
[21]李慧民,徐玉芳.河南省大学生心理健康状况调查研究[J].中国公共卫生,2003,10: 1192-1193.
[22]李辉,朱丽芬,李梅.大学生学校适应性研究综述[J].云南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,2:125-127.
[23]李可信.山东省大学生心理健康状况调查研究[J].临沂师范学院学报,2005,1:49-52.
[24]梁清山.不同经济状况高职学生适应性差异比较研究[J].辽宁教育研究,2006,3:25-26.
[25]林崇德,杨治良,黄希庭.心理学大词典[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2004:1155.
[26]柳春香,任泽港,江雅利.大学新生适应性与社会支持的关系研究[J].高校保健医学研究与实践,2006,3:10-13.
[27]卢谢峰.大学生适应性量表的编制与标准化[D].武汉:华中师范大学,2003.
[28]罗道全,李玲.大学新生心理健康状况调查[J].教育与现代化,2005,1:56-59.
[29]马小明,徐宪春.自我同一性与大学生心理健康分析[J].中国高教研究,2005,5:46-47.
[30]彭晓玲,周仲瑜,柏伟等.人学生价值观与心理健康相关性调查分析[J].重庆科技学院学报(社会科学版),2005,2:62-66.
[31]覃干超,欧阳丹.高师院校新生 UPI 调查分析[J].高教论坛,2006,4:148-150.
[32]陶沙.从生命全程发展观论大学生入学适应[J].北京师范大学学报,2000,2:81-87.
[33]淘沙.社会支持与大学生入学适应关系的研究[J].心理科学,2003,5:908-909.
[34]汪小容.大学新生心理适应问题及对策研究[J].西南交通大学学报,2001,4:100-103.
[35]王明粤.运用 UPI 量表对高校新生的心理状况分析-以广东技术师范学院为例[J].广东技术师范学院学报,2007,3:97-99.
[36]王强,王汝芬,张雪莉等.大学新生心理健康状况调查分析[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2007,9:786-787.
[37]王维杰.大学新生人际适应问题的调研[J].思想教育研究,2006,1:43-44.
[38]王永和.谈大学生心理健康的重要性 [J].中国高教研究,2004,4.
[39]王玉.一年级大学生心理健康状况的分析与研究[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2006,6: 630-632.
[40]肖海鸥.贫困大学生心理健康状况、应付方式与学习成绩研究[J].中国健康教育,2007,2:100-102.
[41]肖琼,肖玮.大学生心理适应过程的验证[J].第四军医大学学报,2006,4:338-340.
[42]谢维营.正确价值观的培养与大学生心理健康教育[J].广播电视大学学报,2005,5: 35.
[43]熊燕,彭萍,胡一秋.大学生新生心理健康状况调查与分析[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2006,6:612-615.
[44]徐富明,于鹏,李美华.大学生的学习适应性及其与人格特征及社会支持的关系研究[J].中国学校卫生,2005,4:299-300.
[45]阳德华,高和平.大学毕业生心理健康与应付方式的相关研究[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2006,3:283-285.
[46]杨茉莉.浅谈大学生的心理问题[J].西南科技大学高教研究,2005,3:168-169.
[47]叶海燕.大学新生心理健康状况调查研究[J].西南师范大学学报,2003,5:794-797.
[48]叶景山.大学生自我同一性、自尊与心理健康的相关研究[J].中国学校卫生,2006,10: 896-897.
[49]于晓波.大学新生适应性与人格的研究[J].中国健康心理学杂志,2007,5:415-417.
[50]张建梅.影响大学生人际关系的主观因素:基于心理健康的研究[D].桂林:广西师范大学,2006.
[51]张雨新,王燕.归因方式和抑郁[J].心理学报,1989,2:141-148.
[52]赵崇莲,王晓彦,许学华.当代大学生心理健康研究述要[J].宁波大学学报(教育科学版),2006,6:24-27.
[53]赵富才.大学新生心理适应问题研究[J].健康心理学杂志,1999,4:397.
[54]周帆,王登峰.外显和内隐自尊与心理健康的关系[J].中国心理卫生杂志,2005,3: 197-199.
[55]朱丽芬.云南省大学生学校适应性状况及其影响因素的模型建构[D].昆明:云南师范大学,2006.
[56]朱韶蓁.大学生适应性量表(CAS)的修订及应用研究[D].重庆:西南大学,2006.