Holzinger Brigitte, Mayer Lucille, Barros Isabel, Nierwetberg Franziska, Klösch Gerhard
Institute for Consciousness and Dream Research, Vienna, Austria.
Psychology Department, California State University, Long Beach, CA, United States.
Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 16;11:585702. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.585702. eCollection 2020.
Validated instruments for the analysis of dream contents are still scarce. Therefore, the aim of this study was to validate the Dreamland Questionnaire (DL-Q) by comparing its results to those of the Hall and van de Castle Coding System (HVDC). Twenty-two participants voluntarily filled in a written dream report as well as our DL-Q questionnaire, in total 30 dreams were collected with both measures. Written reports were analyzed with the HVDC and results of the two instruments were compared using Pearson correlations. Results showed that correlations were high for dominant characters, pleasantness of dream content, and body-related experiences. However, some DL-Q items showed low correlations and others could not be compared directly, as the HVDC did not include the same set of items. The DL-Q showed satisfactory validity and reliability as a measure of dream criteria and may serve as an effective tool for diagnosis and evaluation and facilitate future clinical and research studies. Nevertheless, some items could not be compared as part of this study and should be validated in future investigations.
用于分析梦境内容的经过验证的工具仍然很少。因此,本研究的目的是通过将梦境问卷(DL-Q)的结果与霍尔和范德卡斯尔编码系统(HVDC)的结果进行比较,来验证该问卷。22名参与者自愿填写了一份书面梦境报告以及我们的DL-Q问卷,两种方法共收集到30个梦境。书面报告采用HVDC进行分析,并使用皮尔逊相关性比较两种工具的结果。结果显示,在主要角色、梦境内容的愉悦度和与身体相关的体验方面,相关性较高。然而,一些DL-Q项目显示出低相关性,还有一些项目无法直接比较,因为HVDC没有包含相同的项目集。作为一种衡量梦境标准的工具,DL-Q显示出令人满意的有效性和可靠性,可作为诊断和评估的有效工具,并促进未来的临床和研究。尽管如此,作为本研究的一部分,一些项目无法进行比较,应在未来的调查中进行验证。