Toward the standardization of life stress assessment: Definitional discrepancies and inconsistencies in methods
Toward the standardization of life stress assessment: Definitional discrepancies and inconsistencies in methods
复制标题
迈向生活压力评估的标准化：定义上的差异和方法上的不一致
DOI：
10.1002/smi.2460080107
复制
发表时间：
1992
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Frank
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. McQuaid;S. Monroe;J. R. Roberts;Sheri L. Johnson;G. Garamoni;D. Kupfer;E. Frank
关于评估生活压力的方法一直存在相当大的争议。然而，自我报告清单和基于访谈的测量（当前研究中使用的主要方法）在几个方面有所不同，从基本定义到理论假设。大多数比较这两种方法的研究都集中在预测疾病的全球比较上，而没有考虑到方法如何变化的更具体的信息。本文概述了生活压力评估的三个阶段：定义、操作化和量化。以抑郁症患者为样本对这些阶段进行详细检查，有助于以明确的方式证明自我报告检查表和基于访谈的方法在测量过程的连续阶段中是如何不同的。提出的数据表明，由于两种评估方法中使用的定义和操作程序的具体差异，存在较大的终点差异。讨论了所发现差异的性质，以及对评估生活压力和测试其对健康和福祉的影响的影响。
There has been considerable controversy about methods for assessing life stress. However, self-report checklists and interview-based measures (the predominant approaches used in current research) differ in several respects, ranging from basic definitions through theoretical assumptions. Most research comparing these two approaches has focused on global comparisons in predicting disorder, which fail to take into account more specific information on how the methods vary. The present article outlines three stages of assessment for life stress: definition, operationalization, and quantification. Detailed examination of these stages with a sample of depressed patients helps to demonstrate in an explicit manner how self-report checklists and interview-based methods differ at successive stages of the measurement process. Data are presented that indicate large endpoint discrepancies attributable to specific differences in the definitional and operational procedures used in the two assessment approaches. The nature of the discrepancies found is discussed, along with the implications for assessing life stress and testing its implications for health and well-being.
抑郁症的发作和开始治疗的时间：生活压力的作用。
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Monroe,SM;Simons,AD;Thase,ME
通讯作者：
Thase,ME