Aneshensel Carol S
Department of Community Health Sciences, Box 951772, 650 Young Drive South, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095-1772, USA.
J Health Soc Behav. 2002 Jun;43(2):236-46.
This commentary speaks to several issues that arise from the papers in this special issue. Two articles--Kessler (2002) and Mirowsky and Ross (2002)--focus on a major measurement issue: dimensional versus diagnostic-type assessments. One topic requires greater attention: the correspondence of these measures with the underlying states they supposedly measure--constructs in the psychometric tradition and empirically defined illnesses in the medical or psychiatric tradition. Conclusions about the nature of these unobserved states remain tentative at this time. Three articles--Keyes (2002), Schwartz (2002), and Umberson, Williams, and Anderson (2002)--address the expansion of mental health outcomes. The existing reliance on emotional distress is problematic for sociological research because a single disorder is not a good proxy for estimates of the overall mental health consequences of social arrangements. Although these papers present diverse and sometimes conflicting perspectives, collectively they demonstrate that no one approach to outcomes is best for all research questions.
这篇评论探讨了本期特刊中的论文引发的几个问题。两篇文章——凯斯勒(2002年)以及米罗斯基和罗斯(2002年)——关注一个主要的测量问题:维度评估与诊断类评估。有一个主题需要更多关注:这些测量方法与它们理应测量的潜在状态之间的对应关系——心理测量传统中的构念以及医学或精神病学传统中根据经验定义的疾病。目前关于这些未观察到的状态的性质的结论仍然是试探性的。三篇文章——凯斯(2002年)、施瓦茨(2002年)以及昂伯森、威廉姆斯和安德森(2002年)——探讨了心理健康结果的扩展。社会学研究目前对情绪困扰的依赖存在问题,因为单一疾病并非社会安排对整体心理健康影响估计的良好替代指标。尽管这些论文呈现了多样且有时相互冲突的观点,但总体而言,它们表明没有一种结果研究方法对所有研究问题都是最佳的。