Department of Psychiatry, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014 Sep;68(9):712-20. doi: 10.1111/pcn.12193. Epub 2014 Jun 9.
Although previous reports have addressed worry and rumination as prominent cognitive processes in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and their distinct correlation with anxious and depressive symptoms, the differential association of worry and rumination with the diagnosis of GAD and MDD remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the distinct features of worry and rumination in factor structure and their predictive validity for the diagnosis of GAD and MDD.
Four hundred and sixty-eight patients with GAD (n = 148) and MDD (n = 320) were enrolled and the diagnoses were confirmed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. Participants completed the Penn State Worry Questionnaire and Ruminative Response Scale and the severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms was assessed via clinician ratings.
In joint factor analysis using the Penn State Worry Questionnaire and Ruminative Response Scale items, worry and rumination emerged as distinct factors. In logistic regression analyses, worry contributed to a higher probability of the diagnosis of GAD than rumination, as rumination did in MDD than worry.
This is the first comprehensive study investigating the diagnostic utility of worry and rumination in a well-defined clinical sample of both GAD and MDD. Our results suggest that worry and rumination are distinct cognitive processes and play a differential role in the diagnosis of GAD and MDD, distinguishing them at the cognitive level.
尽管先前的研究已经探讨了广泛性焦虑障碍(GAD)和重度抑郁障碍(MDD)中担忧和反刍这两种突出的认知过程,以及它们与焦虑和抑郁症状的明显相关性,但担忧和反刍与 GAD 和 MDD 诊断的差异关联仍不清楚。本研究的目的是探究担忧和反刍在因子结构中的不同特征及其对 GAD 和 MDD 诊断的预测效度。
纳入 468 名 GAD(n=148)和 MDD(n=320)患者,采用 DSM-IV 定式临床访谈进行诊断确认。参与者完成了宾夕法尼亚州担忧问卷和反刍反应量表,焦虑和抑郁症状的严重程度通过临床医生的评估进行评定。
在宾夕法尼亚州担忧问卷和反刍反应量表项目的联合因子分析中,担忧和反刍表现为不同的因子。在逻辑回归分析中,与反刍相比,担忧更有助于提高 GAD 的诊断概率,而反刍则有助于提高 MDD 的诊断概率。
这是一项首次在 GAD 和 MDD 的明确临床样本中综合探究担忧和反刍的诊断效用的研究。我们的结果表明,担忧和反刍是不同的认知过程,在 GAD 和 MDD 的诊断中发挥着不同的作用,在认知层面上对它们进行区分。