The categorical versus dimensional assessment controversy in the sociology of mental illness
The categorical versus dimensional assessment controversy in the sociology of mental illness
复制标题
DOI：
10.2307/3090195
复制
发表时间：
2002-06-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Kessler, RC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kessler, RC
本文回顾了在心理困扰研究中使用分类评估与维度评估的社会学争议。社会学家对维度评估的偏好可以追溯到两个假设：（1）通过使用维度测量可以最准确地操作预测因素与心理困扰综合症的关联； (2) 不能合理地推断出真正离散的精神疾病的存在，从而证明建立二分法措施是合理的。本文描述了检验这两个假设的方法。有人认为，第一个假设是关键假设，并且只有当可以证明预测变量与维度分数的关联在整个相关维度严重性范围内保持不变时，维度分析才有用。本文最后提出了在未来社会学研究中串联使用分类评估和维度评估的论点。
This paper reviews the sociological controversy over using categorical versus dimensional assessments in the study of psychological distress. The preference of sociologists for dimensional assessments is traced to two assumptions: (1) that the associations of predictors with psychological distress syndromes are most accurately operationalized by using dimensional measures; and (2) that no true discrete mental illnesses can reasonably be inferred to exist that would justify the creation of dichotomous measures. Methods are described in this paper to test both assumptions. An argument is made that the first assumption is the critical one and that dimensional analysis is useful only when it can be demonstrated that the associations of predictors with dimensional scores are constant throughout the relevant dimensional severity range. The paper closes with an argument for the tandem use of categorical and dimensional assessments in future sociological research.