UCL Ear Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Institute of Mental Health Sciences, School of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.
Ear Hear. 2020 Jul/Aug;41(4):1028-1039. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000826.
There is a great deal of variation in the extent to which people with tinnitus find it distressing, which cannot be explained solely by differences in perceived loudness. The Cognitive Behavioral Model of Tinnitus Distress proposes that tinnitus becomes and is maintained as a distressing problem due to a process of interaction between negative thoughts, negative emotions, attention and monitoring, safety behavior, and beliefs. This study used path analysis to assess how well different configurations of this model fit using questionnaire data obtained from people with tinnitus.
This was a cross-sectional study. Three hundred forty-two members of the public with tinnitus volunteered to complete a survey comprising a series of questionnaires and subscales of questionnaires measuring each of the constructs contained within the Cognitive Behavioral Model of Tinnitus Distress. The optimum factor structure of each measure for the study population was established, and the resulting factors were used to construct a series of path models based on the theoretical model. Path analysis was conducted for each of these, and the goodness of fit of the models was assessed using established fit criteria.
Five of the six path models tested reached the threshold for adequate fit, and further modifications improved the fit of the three most parsimonious of these. The two best-fitting models had comparable fit indices which approached the criteria for good fit (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.061, Comparative Fit Index = 0.984, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.970 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.055, Comparative Fit Index = 0.993, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.982). They differed principally in the placement of tinnitus magnitude and the inclusion/noninclusion of control beliefs.
There are theoretical arguments to support both a beliefs-driven and a loudness-driven model, and it may be that different configurations of the Cognitive Behavioral Model of Tinnitus Distress are more appropriate to different groups of people with tinnitus. Further investigation of this is needed. This notwithstanding, the present study provides empirical support for a model of tinnitus distress which provides a clinical framework for the development of more effective psychological therapy.
耳鸣患者的困扰程度存在很大差异,而这种差异不能仅用感知响度的差异来解释。耳鸣困扰的认知行为模型提出,由于消极思想、消极情绪、注意力和监测、安全行为和信念之间的相互作用过程,耳鸣会成为并保持为一个困扰问题。本研究使用路径分析来评估使用从耳鸣患者那里获得的问卷调查数据,该模型的不同配置的拟合程度如何。
这是一项横断面研究。342 名耳鸣的公众自愿完成了一项调查,该调查包括一系列问卷和问卷的子量表,用于测量耳鸣困扰的认知行为模型中包含的每个结构。为研究人群确定了每个测量的最佳因素结构,并使用这些因素构建了一系列基于理论模型的路径模型。对每个模型进行路径分析,并使用既定的拟合标准评估模型的拟合程度。
测试的六个路径模型中有五个达到了良好拟合的标准,进一步的修改提高了其中三个最简约模型的拟合度。两个拟合度最好的模型具有相似的拟合指数,接近良好拟合的标准(近似均方根误差=0.061,比较拟合指数=0.984,塔克-刘易斯指数=0.970 和近似均方根误差=0.055,比较拟合指数=0.993,塔克-刘易斯指数=0.982)。它们的主要区别在于耳鸣程度的位置和控制信念的包含/不包含。
有理论论据支持信念驱动和响度驱动的模型,并且耳鸣困扰的认知行为模型的不同配置可能更适合不同组别的耳鸣患者。需要进一步研究这一点。尽管如此,本研究为耳鸣困扰模型提供了实证支持,为开发更有效的心理疗法提供了临床框架。