• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1432886
PMID:39286565
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11403636/
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.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f8d4/11403636/472d55336479/fpsyg-15-1432886-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f8d4/11403636/2aba3df682a1/fpsyg-15-1432886-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f8d4/11403636/472d55336479/fpsyg-15-1432886-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f8d4/11403636/2aba3df682a1/fpsyg-15-1432886-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f8d4/11403636/472d55336479/fpsyg-15-1432886-g002.jpg
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。

相似文献

1
Factors influencing quality of processing in EMDR therapy.影响眼动脱敏与再处理疗法(EMDR)治疗过程质量的因素。
Front Psychol. 2024 Sep 2;15:1432886. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1432886. eCollection 2024.
2
[Validation of the French version of the Body Shape Questionnaire].[《身体形态问卷》法语版的验证]
Encephale. 2005 Mar-Apr;31(2):162-73. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(05)82383-8.
3
[Factorial analysis and internal consistency of the French version of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS 20), in obese women].[肥胖女性中多伦多述情障碍量表(TAS 20)法语版的因子分析与内部一致性]
Encephale. 2002 Jul-Aug;28(4):277-82.
4
Design and validation of an instrument to evaluate Person-Centered care in health services.一种用于评估卫生服务中以患者为中心的护理的工具的设计与验证。
Arch Public Health. 2024 Aug 14;82(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s13690-024-01324-2.
5
[French validation of the Verona Service Satisfaction Scale-VSSS-54F].[《维罗纳服务满意度量表 - VSSS - 54F》的法语验证]
Encephale. 2003 Mar-Apr;29(2):110-8.
6
[A study of the psychometric properties of the Icelandic translation of Obsessive Thoughts Checklist (OTC) with confirmatory factor analysis].[一项采用验证性因素分析对强迫观念检查表(OTC)冰岛语翻译版进行心理测量学特性研究]
Encephale. 2005 Mar-Apr;31(2):144-51. doi: 10.1016/s0013-7006(05)82381-4.
7
[Refinement of the French sociotropy-autonomy scale: Validation of a 20-item measure of social dependency among first-year students at the university].[法国社会依赖-自主量表的优化:大学一年级学生社会依赖20项测量指标的验证]
Encephale. 2020 Aug;46(4):248-257. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2019.10.007. Epub 2020 Jan 9.
8
A new perspective and assessment measure for common dissociative experiences: 'Felt Sense of Anomaly'.一种常见的分离体验的新视角和评估方法:“异常感觉”。
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 24;16(2):e0247037. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247037. eCollection 2021.
9
The Pandemic Stressor Scale: factorial validity and reliability of a measure of stressors during a pandemic.《大流行病应激源量表》:一种大流行病期间应激源测量工具的因子有效性和可靠性。
BMC Psychol. 2022 Apr 8;10(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s40359-022-00790-z.
10
Skills training followed by either EMDR or narrative therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in adult survivors of childhood abuse: a randomized controlled trial.技能训练后采用眼动脱敏再处理或叙事疗法治疗儿童期受虐待的成年幸存者创伤后应激障碍:一项随机对照试验。
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2024;15(1):2332104. doi: 10.1080/20008066.2024.2332104. Epub 2024 Apr 17.

本文引用的文献

1
The role of dissociation-related beliefs about memory in trauma-focused treatment.与记忆解离相关的信念在创伤聚焦治疗中的作用。
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2023;14(2):2265182. doi: 10.1080/20008066.2023.2265182. Epub 2023 Oct 17.
2
Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing versus Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.眼动脱敏再处理疗法与认知行为疗法治疗创伤后应激障碍的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 15;19(24):16836. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192416836.
3
Talk-based approaches to support people who are distressed by their experience of hearing voices: A scoping review.
基于谈话的方法对因幻听经历而痛苦的人提供支持:一项范围综述。
Front Psychiatry. 2022 Oct 10;13:983999. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.983999. eCollection 2022.
4
Effectiveness of time-limited eye movement desensitization reprocessing therapy for parents of children with a rare life-limiting illness: a randomized clinical trial.限时眼球运动脱敏再处理疗法对患有罕见危及生命疾病的儿童的父母的有效性:一项随机临床试验。
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022 Sep 2;17(1):328. doi: 10.1186/s13023-022-02500-9.
5
The Effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Toward Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.眼动脱敏再处理疗法对成人重度抑郁症的疗效:随机对照试验的荟萃分析
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Aug 6;12:700458. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.700458. eCollection 2021.
6
Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.眼动脱敏再处理疗法治疗抑郁症:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2021 Apr 9;12(1):1894736. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2021.1894736.
7
Effectiveness of three brief treatments for recent traumatic events in a low-SES community setting.近期创伤性事件三种简短治疗方法在低收入社区环境下的效果。
Psychol Trauma. 2021 Jan;13(1):123-132. doi: 10.1037/tra0000594. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
8
Mechanisms linking childhood trauma exposure and psychopathology: a transdiagnostic model of risk and resilience.链接儿童期创伤暴露与精神病理学的机制:一种风险和弹性的跨诊断模型。
BMC Med. 2020 Apr 1;18(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01561-6.
9
Do emotion regulation difficulties affect outcome of intensive trauma-focused treatment of patients with severe PTSD?情绪调节困难是否会影响重度创伤后应激障碍患者强化创伤聚焦治疗的效果?
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2020 Feb 24;11(1):1724417. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2020.1724417. eCollection 2020.
10
The EMDR Recent Birth Trauma Protocol: a pilot randomised clinical trial after traumatic childbirth.眼动脱敏再处理近期分娩创伤议定书:创伤性分娩后的一项初步随机临床试验。
Psychol Health. 2020 Jul;35(7):795-810. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2019.1699088. Epub 2019 Dec 5.