Department of Psychology, Fordham University, 441 East Fordham Road, Bronx, New York 10458, USA.
J Trauma Stress. 2010 Aug;23(4):528-31. doi: 10.1002/jts.20552.
The current review critically examines the body of torture research (N = 209), focusing on the definition and operationalization of the primary construct. Almost three-quarters (69.9%) of the studies reviewed did not reference any definition of torture. Few studies identified important contextual variables related to defining torture such as identities and motivations of perpetrators and severity of abuse. Definitional ambiguity further impacted how individuals were queried about their experiences and the extent to which torture was distinguished from other forms of maltreatment. Although there are notable exceptions, the methods used in the torture literature are variable and often undefined, impacting the interpretation of findings of risk factors, consequences, and treatment of torture events.
目前的评论批判性地考察了酷刑研究领域（N=209），重点关注主要建构的定义和操作化。近四分之三（69.9%）的研究没有参考任何酷刑的定义。很少有研究确定了与定义酷刑相关的重要背景变量，例如施害者的身份和动机以及虐待的严重程度。定义上的模糊性进一步影响了对个人经历的询问方式，以及酷刑与其他形式的虐待之间的区别程度。尽管有一些值得注意的例外，但酷刑文献中使用的方法是可变的，而且往往没有明确定义，这影响了对风险因素、后果以及酷刑事件治疗的发现的解释。
