Suppr超能文献

影响眼动脱敏与再处理疗法(EMDR)治疗过程质量的因素。

Factors influencing quality of processing in EMDR therapy.

作者信息

Ramallo-Machín Alejandra, Gómez-Salas Francisco J, Burgos-Julián Francisco, Santed-Germán M A, Gonzalez-Vazquez Ana Isabel

机构信息

Universidade da Coruña, Facultad de Ciencias, A. Coruña, Spain.

Facultad de Psicología y Logopedia, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2024 Sep 2;15:1432886. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1432886. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

This study presents a preliminary analysis of a new instrument oriented at the analysis of processes in EMDR trauma therapy, the Processing Difficulties Scale (PDS). This scale includes 17 items described by experienced EMDR consultants and practitioners as indicative of problems during memory reprocessing. The proposed factorial solution based on four factors explains a total variance explained of 55% and an adequate goodness of fit, based on the proposed indices: RMSEA = 0.07; TLI = 0.91; CFI = 0.95. Table 1 shows the factorial loads for each of the items. The first factor includes 5 items (7, 8, 9, 10, 11), the second factor includes 6 items (13, 14, 25, 27, 28, 31), the third factor includes 3 items (3, 16, 22) and the fourth factor includes 3 items (19, 23, 24). Confirmatory analysis confirms the factorial solution proposed in the exploratory analysis factor and based on four factors with 17 items. The analysis of internal consistency from Cronbach's alpha and the Omega index shows good internal consistency: Factor 1 (good processing; α = 0.92; ω = 0.94), Factor 2 (lack of generalization and/or absence of changes; α = 0.87; ω = 0.90), Factor 3 (poor emotional processing; α = 0.83; ω = 0.85) an Factor 4 (loss of dual attention; α = 0.82; ω = 0.83). In the case of the total scale, both coefficients exceeded 0.90, with an alpha of 0.92 and an Omega of 0.94. The convergent and discriminant validity criteria were estimated by calculating correlations, exploring the relationship between the factors resulting from the final result, the global severity index (GSI) of the SCL-90 and the level of improvement (NGS). These statistical analyses showed good levels of convergent and discriminant validity for all final factors. The PDS may offer a different perspective to analyze the controversy between clinicians and researchers about the need of a preparation phase in patients with complex early traumatization, dissociative symptoms and/or emotion dysregulation, and the different results in specific research around this topic. Exploring the problems in processing in a transdiagnostic way, in a preliminary analysis, we found that the number of early traumatic events measured with the ACE correlates positively with indicators of a loss of dual attention, while emotional dysregulation measured with the DERS does not predict poor processing. Finally, the dissociation measured with the DES seems to correlate positively with the indicators of a loss of dual attention during processing, not seeming to predict poor processing but did show a negative correlation with the indicators of good general processing. These results partially support the findings of some authors on the involvement of certain variables in the processing of traumatic memories, and it may be interesting to evaluate processing styles and their relationship with various indicators, to develop specific interventions in phase 2 of EMDR therapy, thus improving clinical interventions.

摘要

本研究对一种旨在分析眼动脱敏再处理(EMDR)创伤治疗过程的新工具——处理困难量表(PDS)进行了初步分析。该量表包含17个项目,这些项目由经验丰富的EMDR顾问和从业者描述为记忆再处理过程中存在问题的指标。基于四个因素提出的因子解解释了55%的总方差,并且根据所提出的指标具有良好的拟合优度:均方根误差近似值(RMSEA)=0.07;塔克-刘易斯指数(TLI)=0.91;比较拟合指数(CFI)=0.95。表1显示了每个项目的因子载荷。第一个因素包括5个项目(7、8、9、10、11),第二个因素包括6个项目(13、14、25、27、28、31),第三个因素包括3个项目(3、16、22),第四个因素包括3个项目(19、23、24)。验证性分析证实了探索性分析因子中基于四个因素和17个项目提出的因子解。基于克朗巴哈α系数和欧米伽指数对内部一致性的分析显示出良好的内部一致性:因素1(良好处理;α=0.92;ω=0.94),因素2(缺乏泛化和/或无变化;α=0.87;ω=0.90),因素3(情绪处理不佳;α=0.83;ω=0.85),因素4(注意力分散丧失;α=0.82;ω=0.83)。就总量表而言,两个系数均超过0.90,α系数为0.92,欧米伽系数为0.94。通过计算相关性来估计收敛效度和区分效度标准,探索最终结果产生的因素、症状自评量表90(SCL - 90)的总体严重程度指数(GSI)与改善水平(NGS)之间的关系。这些统计分析表明所有最终因素的收敛效度和区分效度水平良好。PDS可能为分析临床医生和研究人员之间关于复杂早期创伤、分离症状和/或情绪失调患者是否需要准备阶段的争议,以及围绕该主题的特定研究中的不同结果提供不同视角。在初步分析中,以跨诊断方式探索处理过程中的问题,我们发现用儿童期不良经历问卷(ACE)测量的早期创伤事件数量与注意力分散丧失指标呈正相关,而用情绪调节困难量表(DERS)测量的情绪失调并不能预测处理不佳。最后,用解离经验量表(DES)测量的解离似乎与处理过程中注意力分散丧失指标呈正相关,似乎不能预测处理不佳,但确实与良好总体处理指标呈负相关。这些结果部分支持了一些作者关于某些变量在创伤记忆处理中的作用的研究发现,评估处理方式及其与各种指标的关系,以在EMDR治疗的第二阶段制定具体干预措施,从而改善临床干预,可能会很有意思。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f8d4/11403636/2aba3df682a1/fpsyg-15-1432886-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验