Clinical Neuroscience Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Pritzker School of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Clinical Neuroscience Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Pritzker School of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Psychiatry Res. 2018 Dec;270:20-25. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.064. Epub 2018 Aug 18.
Individuals with DSM-5 Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) are often suspected of minimizing the nature of their recurrent, problematic, impulsive aggressive behavior due to the social undesirability of these behaviors. Our first study involved 400 study participants categorized as Healthy Controls (HC), Psychiatric Controls (PC) and as having IED and included the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (SDS), the Lie Scale from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R Lie), and the Readiness to Change (Anger) Questionnaire (RTC). IED study participants had lower SDS and lower EPQ-R Lie scores, while having higher RTC scores, compared with both HC and PC study participants. Thus, when studied in a clinical research setting, IED study participants do not provide socially desirable answers to questions and do not engaging in deceptive reporting; likely because they have recognized their need/interest in reducing their own impulsive aggressive behavior. The second study, part of a family study of 70 probands and their first-degree relatives revealed a very high positive (96.3%), but substantially lower negative (55.8%), predictive power for IED based on informant report. This suggests that, while interview of close informants can confirm the diagnosis of IED, informant interviews cannot rule out IED when such informants provide a negative report.
患有 DSM-5 间歇性爆发性障碍 (IED) 的个体常常因这些行为在社交上不受欢迎而被怀疑对其反复发作、问题严重、冲动性攻击行为的性质轻描淡写。我们的第一项研究涉及 400 名研究参与者,他们被归类为健康对照组 (HC)、精神病对照组 (PC) 和患有 IED,并包括 Crowne-Marlowe 社会期望量表 (SDS)、艾森克人格问卷修订版 (EPQ-R) 的谎言量表和改变准备程度 (愤怒) 问卷 (RTC)。与 HC 和 PC 研究参与者相比,IED 研究参与者的 SDS 和 EPQ-R 谎言评分较低,而 RTC 评分较高。因此,在临床研究环境中进行研究时,IED 研究参与者不会对问题提供社会期望的答案,也不会进行欺骗性报告;这可能是因为他们已经认识到自己有减少冲动性攻击行为的需要/兴趣。第二项研究是对 70 名先证者及其一级亲属的家族研究的一部分,结果显示,基于知情者报告,IED 的阳性预测值非常高 (96.3%),但阴性预测值明显较低 (55.8%)。这表明,尽管对亲密知情者进行访谈可以确认 IED 的诊断,但当这些知情者提供负面报告时,知情者访谈不能排除 IED。