Mitchell Jeffrey T
Department of Emergency Health Services, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA.
Int J Emerg Ment Health. 2007 Fall;9(4):247-52.
Terminology borrowed from other disciplines for use in crisis intervention is inadvertently open to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Misconceptions about terminology are most common when terms are transmitted across social, cultural, national, language, and attitudinal boundaries. Critical Incident Stress Management, which is a subset of crisis intervention, encountered that exact problem with three of its terms: demobilization, defusing, and Critical Incident Stress Debriefing. Several flawed studies based on misinterpretations of the meaning of these terms have appeared in the literature. The studies may have stimulated some practitioners of crisis intervention to incorrectly conclude that those interventions were ineffective. Professionals within the Critical Incident Stress Management Unit of the Department of Safety and Security of the United Nations suggested alternative and augmented terminology to reduce the potential for further misinterpretations of Critical Incident Stress Management procedures.
从其他学科借用并用于危机干预的术语容易被无意地误解和歪曲。当术语跨越社会、文化、国家、语言和态度界限传播时，对术语的误解最为常见。作为危机干预一部分的关键事件应激管理，其三个术语：复员、缓解和关键事件应激汇报，就遇到了这样的问题。文献中出现了一些基于对这些术语含义误解的有缺陷的研究。这些研究可能促使一些危机干预从业者错误地得出这些干预无效的结论。联合国安全和安保部关键事件应激管理股的专业人员建议采用替代和扩充的术语，以减少对关键事件应激管理程序进一步误解的可能性。
