首页> 外文期刊>Journal of affective disorders >The measurement of a major childhood risk for depression: Comparison of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) 'Parental Care' and the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse (CECA) 'Parental Neglect'.
【24h】

The measurement of a major childhood risk for depression: Comparison of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) 'Parental Care' and the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse (CECA) 'Parental Neglect'.

机译:测量儿童的主要抑郁风险:父母联结工具(PBI)的“父母亲护理”和儿童期的照料和虐待经历(CECA)父母亲疏忽的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Lack of adequate parental care is a consistent predictor of adult depression. Questionnaire measures that compare well with interviews are needed for large-scale studies of affective disorders in the general population. A widely used questionnaire, the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI), was compared with a detailed standardized interview, the Childhood Experiences of Care and Abuse (CECA). METHODS: PBI ratings of maternal and paternal care were obtained from 192 women aged 25-36, identified from primary care lists. The women were interviewed for childhood neglect using the CECA, and ratings made blind to their PBI responses. RESULTS: The discriminative ability of PBI care scores to predict measures of neglect in the CECA were moderate to high, and the addition of paternal scores did not add to the prediction from maternal scores. Shortened forms of the PBI maternal care scales provided comparable predictions to those from the full scale, particularly three items from the maternal care scale, identified by logistic regression. LIMITATIONS: PBI and CECA measures on the women were retrospective. Low numbers in some of the subgroups of interest limited statistical power and is reflected in wider confidence intervals. The three maternal care items identified by logistic regression need to be confirmed in other samples as being as efficient as the combined maternal and paternal care scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: The maternal care scale of the PBI compares reasonably well as an index of overall neglect in childhood to that provided by the CECA.
机译:背景:缺乏足够的父母照料是成人抑郁症的一致预测因素。对于一般人群的情感障碍的大规模研究,需要采取与访谈相比较的问卷调查方法。比较了广泛使用的问卷调查表“父母亲结合工具(PBI)”和详细的标准化访谈“儿童护理和虐待经历”(CECA)。方法:PBI的母婴护理等级是从192名年龄在25-36岁的女性中获得的,这些女性是从初级保健清单中确定的。使用CECA对这些妇女进行了童年忽略,并接受了访谈,而评分对他们的PBI反应无视。结果:PBI护理评分预测CECA中的忽视程度的判别能力为中度到高,并且父亲评分的增加并未增加产妇评分的预测。 PBI产妇护理量表的缩短形式提供了与全量表相比的可预测性,特别是通过逻辑回归确定的产妇护理量表中的三项。局限性:PBI和CECA对女性的措施是回顾性的。在某些感兴趣的子组中,较低的数字限制了统计能力,并反映在较宽的置信区间内。通过逻辑回归确定的三个孕产妇护理项目需要在其他样本中确认,其有效性与合并的孕产妇和父母护理量表分数一样有效。结论:PBI的产妇护理量表与CECA提供的儿童全面忽视指标在儿童期总体比较合理。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号