Green B L
J Nerv Ment Dis. 1982 Sep;170(9):544-52. doi: 10.1097/00005053-198209000-00005.
It is noted that research on the psychological effects of disaster, particularly with regard to rates of impairment, has turned up confusing and sometimes contradictory results. Two sets of dimensions salient to such investigations are noted: those which are aspects of disasters per se and affect actual rates of impairment ("true scores") and those which could be expected to affect estimates of impairment rates ("error variance") following disaster. Dimensions of disasters per se suggested by others are reviewed, and an additional dimension is proposed. Four methodological dimensions affecting reported impairment rates are described (sampling of subjects, level of data, case identification, and time of follow-up). Studies of long term psychological effects of disaster where some estimate of impairment was given are reviewed in order to demonstrate the noncomparability of findings from study to study due to methodological differences.
需要注意的是,关于灾难心理影响的研究,尤其是在损伤率方面,得出了令人困惑且有时相互矛盾的结果。此类调查中突出的两组维度值得关注:一组是灾难本身的各个方面,它们会影响实际损伤率(“真实分数”);另一组是预计会影响灾难后损伤率估计值(“误差方差”)的因素。本文回顾了其他人提出的灾难本身的维度,并提出了一个额外的维度。描述了影响报告损伤率的四个方法学维度(研究对象的抽样、数据水平、病例识别和随访时间)。本文还回顾了一些给出了损伤估计值的灾难长期心理影响研究,以证明由于方法学差异,不同研究结果之间缺乏可比性。