Steinert Christiane, Klein Susanne, Leweke Frank, Leichsenring Falk
Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Giessen, Germany.
Br J Clin Psychol. 2015 Mar;54(1):109-25. doi: 10.1111/bjc.12064. Epub 2014 Aug 22.
Whether personality characteristics have an impact on treatment outcome is an important question in psychotherapy research. One of the most common approaches for the description of personality is the five-factor model of personality. Only few studies investigated whether patient personality as measured with the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, Costa & McCrae [1992b]. Revised NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Recources) predicts outcome. Results were inconsistent. Studies reporting personality to be predictive of outcome did not control for baseline symptoms, while studies controlling initial symptoms could not support these findings. We hypothesized that after taking into account baseline symptoms, the NEO-FFI would not predict outcome and tested this in a large sample of inpatients at a psychosomatic clinic.
Naturalistic, non-controlled study using patients' data for multiple regression analysis to identify predictors of outcome.
Data of 254 inpatients suffering primarily from depressive, anxiety, stress, and somatoform disorders were analysed. Personality was assessed at the beginning of therapy. For psychotherapy outcome, changes in anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS), overall psychopathology (Symptom Checklist-90-R Global Severity Index [GSI]), and interpersonal problems (Inventory of Interpersonal Problems; IIP) were measured.
The treatment resulted in significant decreases on all outcome measures corresponding to moderate to large effect sizes (HADS: d = 1.03; GSI: d = 0.90; IIP: d = 0.38). Consistent with our hypothesis, none of the personality domains predicted outcome when baseline symptoms were controlled for.
Personality assessment at baseline does not seem to have an added value in the prediction of inpatient psychotherapy outcome beyond initial symptoms.
Clinical implications Personality dimensions overlap with symptomatic distress. Rather than serve as predictors of outcome, the domains tapped by the NEO-FFI reflect current psychological symptomatology in inpatients with depressive, anxiety, stress or somatoform disorders. From a clinician's point of view monitoring individual progress by using actuarial measures is more valuable than trying to predict who will benefit from treatment using personality assessments. Limitations of the study Diagnostic assessment was solely based on clinical evaluation rather than structured interviews. Twenty-five per cent of the original sample had to be excluded due to missing data. There was a focus on only one set of client characteristics (i.e., five-factor model personality traits). Assessment of personality domains in the acute phase of a mental disorder may be problematic and could have influenced findings.
人格特征是否会对治疗结果产生影响是心理治疗研究中的一个重要问题。描述人格最常用的方法之一是人格五因素模型。仅有少数研究调查了用新版大五人格量表(NEO-FFI,科斯塔和麦克雷[1992b]。修订版NEO-PI-R和NEO-FFI。专业手册。佛罗里达州奥德萨:心理评估资源公司)测量的患者人格是否能预测治疗结果。结果并不一致。报告人格可预测治疗结果的研究未对基线症状进行控制,而控制了初始症状的研究则无法支持这些发现。我们假设在考虑基线症状后,NEO-FFI无法预测治疗结果,并在一家身心疾病诊所的大量住院患者样本中对此进行了测试。
采用自然主义、非对照研究,利用患者数据进行多元回归分析以确定治疗结果的预测因素。
分析了254名主要患有抑郁、焦虑、应激和躯体形式障碍的住院患者的数据。在治疗开始时评估人格。对于心理治疗结果,测量了焦虑和抑郁的变化(医院焦虑抑郁量表;HADS)、总体精神病理学(症状自评量表90修订版全球严重程度指数[GSI])以及人际问题(人际问题量表;IIP)。
治疗使所有治疗结果指标均显著下降,效应量为中度至高度(HADS:d = 1.03;GSI:d = 0.90;IIP:d = 0.38)。与我们的假设一致,在控制了基线症状后,没有一个人格领域能够预测治疗结果。
在预测住院患者心理治疗结果方面,基线时的人格评估似乎并没有超出初始症状的额外价值。
临床意义 人格维度与症状困扰重叠。NEO-FFI所涵盖的领域并非治疗结果的预测指标,而是反映了患有抑郁、焦虑、应激或躯体形式障碍的住院患者当前的心理症状。从临床医生的角度来看,通过精算测量来监测个体进展比试图用人格评估来预测谁将从治疗中获益更有价值。研究的局限性 诊断评估仅基于临床评估而非结构化访谈。由于数据缺失,不得不排除原始样本的25%。研究仅关注了一组患者特征(即五因素模型人格特质)。在精神障碍急性期对人格领域进行评估可能存在问题,并可能影响研究结果。