Wittmann Lutz, Moergeli Hanspeter, Schnyder Ulrich
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
J Trauma Stress. 2006 Oct;19(5):639-51. doi: 10.1002/jts.20154.
To test the predictive power of peritraumatic dissociation for the development of psychopathology, the authors assessed symptoms of peritraumatic dissociation (Peritraumatic Dissociative Experiences Questionnaire; PDEQ), posttraumatic stress disorder (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale; CAPS), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS) in a sample of 214 accident victims 5 days postaccident (T1). Six months later (T2), CAPS and HADS were administered again. Acute stress disorder (ASD) and PTSD symptom levels were surprisingly low. In sequential regression analyses, initial reexperiencing and hyperarousal significantly predicted PTSD symptom level (T2) over several possibly confounding variables controlled for. Peritraumatic dissociation explained less than 3% of variance. For PTSD scores, 38% overall variance explanation was obtained; the variance for HADS scores was low. Possible explanations for the low-predictive power of peritraumatic dissociation for posttraumatic psychopathology in the sample are discussed.
为了测试创伤时解离对精神病理学发展的预测能力,作者对214名事故受害者在事故发生5天后(T1)的创伤时解离症状(创伤时解离体验问卷;PDEQ)、创伤后应激障碍(临床医生管理的PTSD量表;CAPS)、焦虑和抑郁(医院焦虑和抑郁量表;HADS)进行了评估。六个月后(T2),再次进行CAPS和HADS评估。急性应激障碍(ASD)和PTSD症状水平出奇地低。在序列回归分析中,在控制了几个可能的混杂变量后,最初的重新体验和过度觉醒显著预测了PTSD症状水平(T2)。创伤时解离解释的方差不到3%。对于PTSD评分,总体方差解释率为38%;HADS评分的方差较低。文中讨论了该样本中创伤时解离对创伤后精神病理学预测能力较低的可能原因。