Pont H B
Department of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, King's College, Old Aberdeen, Scotland.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1995 Feb;34(1):53-65. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1995.tb01436.x.
General socio-cognitive problem-solving deficits have become accepted as the basis for applied interventions with maladjusted children despite conflicting findings and problematic assessment procedures. This study used Kendall's deficit/distortion distinction to compare the performance of conduct disorder and non-problem boys on means-ends and optional thinking measures, using both quantitative and qualitative indices. Although quantitative problem/non-problem deficits were found, the pattern of results did not support the notion of a consistent maladjustment deficit. The nature of the qualitative differences, however, suggested a more specific role for the assessment of socio-cognitive problem solving with increased emphasis on context and problem differentiation.
尽管存在相互矛盾的研究结果和有问题的评估程序,但一般社会认知问题解决缺陷已被公认为对适应不良儿童进行应用干预的基础。本研究使用肯德尔的缺陷/扭曲区分,通过定量和定性指标,比较品行障碍男孩和无问题男孩在手段-目的和选择性思维测量上的表现。虽然发现了定量的问题/无问题缺陷,但结果模式并不支持一致的适应不良缺陷这一概念。然而,定性差异的性质表明,在社会认知问题解决评估中,更应强调情境和问题区分,从而发挥更具体的作用。