Suppr超能文献

虐待史报告的可靠性:两种询问形式的比较。

The reliability of abuse history reports: a comparison of two inquiry formats.

作者信息

Dill D L, Chu J A, Grob M C, Eisen S V

机构信息

Evaluative Service Unit, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA 02178.

出版信息

Compr Psychiatry. 1991 Mar-Apr;32(2):166-9. doi: 10.1016/0010-440x(91)90009-2.

Abstract

We compared patients' reports about histories of physical or sexual abuse in two independent formats: the standard psychiatric intake interview at admission for inpatient treatment, and a subsequent confidential self-report survey about various forms of early childhood trauma. For 92 consecutively admitted female patients, nearly all reports of abuse histories obtained in the intake interview were consistent with later reports obtained in the survey. However, findings of no abuse history obtained in the intake format were frequently inconsistent with reports obtained in the survey, which were twice as frequent as intake reports. Gender of the intake interviewer was not related to reporting. These data suggest caution in accepting at face value initial denials of abuse histories.

摘要

我们以两种独立的形式比较了患者关于身体虐待或性虐待史的报告

住院治疗入院时的标准精神科接诊访谈,以及随后关于各种形式儿童早期创伤的保密自我报告调查。对于92名连续入院的女性患者,在接诊访谈中获得的几乎所有虐待史报告都与后来在调查中获得的报告一致。然而,在接诊形式中未发现虐待史的结果常常与调查中获得的报告不一致,调查中的报告频率是接诊报告的两倍。接诊访谈者的性别与报告无关。这些数据表明,对于最初否认虐待史的情况,应谨慎地信以为真。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验