Ormel Johan, Rosmalen Judith, Farmer Ann
Dept. of Psychiatry, Groningen University Medical Centre, P. O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, the Netherlands.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004 Nov;39(11):906-12. doi: 10.1007/s00127-004-0873-y.
Neuroticism measures are very popular in psychopathological research, but it is unclear how useful neuroticism is in studies of the aetiology of psychopathology.
A conceptual examination was made of the literature on the association of neuroticism and psychopathology, the ontological status of neuroticism, the purport of neuroticism questionnaires, and causal issues.
The research on which neuroticism is built has historically been based solely on the factor analyses of the common adjectives used to describe usual behaviours. An abundance of studies have shown that neuroticism scores predict life stress, psychological distress, emotional disorders, psychotic symptoms, substance abuse, physical tension-related symptoms, medically unexplained physical symptoms, and health care utilisation. This evidence suggests that neuroticism scales index vulnerability to many forms of negative affect and psychiatric disorder. However, the associations do not clarify the nature of this vulnerability nor the underlying psychobiological mechanisms. We present evidence that neuroticism scores reflect a person's characteristic (or mean) level of distress over a protracted period of time. In this perspective, even prospective associations of neuroticism with mental health outcomes are basically futile, and largely tautological since scores on any characteristic with substantial within-subject stability will predict, by definition, that characteristic and related variables at later points in time.
Neuroticism is not an explanatory concept in the aetiology of psychopathology, since it measures a person's characteristic level of distress over a protracted period of time. This situation will not change until knowledge becomes available about: (i) the mechanisms that produce high neuroticism scores (and, therefore, also psychopathology) and (ii) its neurobiological substrate. Only then will we understand why neuroticism appears to "predict" the outcomes it predicts.
神经质测量在精神病理学研究中非常流行，但尚不清楚神经质在精神病理学病因学研究中有多大作用。
对有关神经质与精神病理学关联、神经质的本体论地位、神经质问卷的主旨以及因果问题的文献进行了概念性考察。
构建神经质的研究在历史上仅基于对用于描述日常行为的常见形容词的因素分析。大量研究表明，神经质得分可预测生活压力、心理困扰、情绪障碍、精神病症状、药物滥用、与身体紧张相关的症状、医学上无法解释的身体症状以及医疗保健利用情况。这一证据表明，神经质量表可指示对多种形式的负面影响和精神障碍的易感性。然而，这些关联并未阐明这种易感性的本质或潜在的心理生物学机制。我们提供的证据表明，神经质得分反映了一个人在一段较长时间内的特征性（或平均）痛苦水平。从这个角度来看，即使神经质与心理健康结果的前瞻性关联基本上也是徒劳的，而且在很大程度上是同义反复的，因为任何具有较大个体内稳定性的特征得分，根据定义，都会预测该特征以及后期的相关变量。
神经质在精神病理学病因学中不是一个解释性概念，因为它测量的是一个人在一段较长时间内的特征性痛苦水平。在获得以下方面的知识之前，这种情况不会改变：（i）产生高神经质得分（进而也产生精神病理学）的机制，以及（ii）其神经生物学基础。只有到那时，我们才会明白为什么神经质似乎能“预测”它所预测的结果。
