CAJ | 학술논문

目的探讨不同类型男性品行障碍青少年的移情缺陷.方法采用基本移情量表中文版对65名男性品行障碍青少年进行测试,与195名正常对照者进行比较.65名品行障碍患者根据症状表现先后被分为破坏型(n=46)与非破坏型(n=19)、公开型(n=23)与隐蔽型(n=42)等4组进行比较.用t检验、协方差分析、logistic回归分析对数据进行处理.结果 (1)患者组的认知移情分低于对照组[(29.86±4.72)分,(32.09 ±4.94)分,(P＜0.01)],差异具有显著性;(2)患者中破坏型组认知移情分低于对照组[(29.76±4.46)分,(32.09±4.94)分,(P＜0.01)],差异具有显著性;(3)患者中公开型组和隐蔽型组的认知移情分低于对照组[分别为(29.22±3.77)分,(30.21±5.17)分,(32.09±4.94)分,(P＜0.05～0.01)],差异具有显著性;公开型组的情感移情分低于隐蔽型组[(26.13±5.05)分,(29.50±4.16)分,(P＜0.05)],差异具有显著性;公开型组的移情总分低于隐蔽型组和对照组[分别为(55.35±7.09)分,(59.71±7.58)分,(60.04±8.50)分,(P＜0.05)],差异具有显著性;(4)Logistic回归分析显示认知移情是品行障碍的保护因素(OR=0.43).结论男性品行障碍青少年存在认知移情缺陷,认知移情可能是品行障碍的保护因素;不同类型品行障碍患者的移情能力具有不同的特征.
목적 탐토불동류형남성품행장애청소년적이정결함.방법 채용기본이정량표중문판대65명남성품행장애청소년진행측시,여195명정상대조자진행비교.65명품행장애환자근거증상표현선후피분위파배형(n=46)여비파배형(n=19)、공개형(n=23)여은폐형(n=42)등4조진행비교.용t검험、협방차분석、logistic회귀분석대수거진행처리.결과 (1)환자조적인지이정분저우대조조[(29.86±4.72)분,(32.09 ±4.94)분,(P＜0.01)],차이구유현저성;(2)환자중파배형조인지이정분저우대조조[(29.76±4.46)분,(32.09±4.94)분,(P＜0.01)],차이구유현저성;(3)환자중공개형조화은폐형조적인지이정분저우대조조[분별위(29.22±3.77)분,(30.21±5.17)분,(32.09±4.94)분,(P＜0.05～0.01)],차이구유현저성;공개형조적정감이정분저우은폐형조[(26.13±5.05)분,(29.50±4.16)분,(P＜0.05)],차이구유현저성;공개형조적이정총분저우은폐형조화대조조[분별위(55.35±7.09)분,(59.71±7.58)분,(60.04±8.50)분,(P＜0.05)],차이구유현저성;(4)Logistic회귀분석현시인지이정시품행장애적보호인소(OR=0.43).결론 남성품행장애청소년존재인지이정결함,인지이정가능시품행장애적보호인소;불동류형품행장애환자적이정능력구유불동적특정.
Objective To explore the empathy deficits of adolescents with different types of conduct disorder. Methods The participants included 65 adolescents ( who met the DSM-Ⅳ criteria for conduct disorder)ranging from 13 ～ 18 in age,and 195 normal adolescents ranging from 13 ～ 18 in age. All participants were assessed by revised Basic Empathy Scale. 65 patients were divided into 4 subgroups according to symptoms: destructive-nondestructive subgroups and overt-covert subgroups. Results (1) Scores of cognitive empathy were lower in patients than normal controls ( (29.86 ± 4.72) vs ( 32.09 ± 4.94), P ＜ 0. 01 ). (2) There were significant differences in the levels of cognitive empathy between patients and controls (P＜0. 01 ). Scores of cognitive empathy were lower in destructive subgroup than controls ( (29.76 ± 4.46) vs ( 32.09 ± 4.94) , P ＜ 0.01 ). (3) There were significant differences in the levels of two dimensions and total scores of empathy between patients and controls (F=3.10 ～5.36, P ＜ 0.05 ). Scores of cognitive empathy were lower in overt subgroup ( 29.22 ± 3.77 ) and covert subgroup (30.21 ± 5.17 ) than controls (32.09 ± 4.94) (P＜ 0.05, P＜0.01 );and scores of affective empathy were lower in overt subgroup than covert subgroup ( (26.13 ±5.05) vs (29.50 ±4.16), P＜0.05 ). Total scores of empathy were lower in overt subgroup (55.35 ±7.09) than covert subgroup (59.71 ±7.58) and controls (60.04 ±8.50 ) (P＜0.05). (4) Logistic regression analysis showed that cognitive empathy was a protective factor for conduct disorders( OR = 0.43 ). Conclusion The cognitive empathy level of patients is significantly lower than normal students;and boys with different types of conduct disorder possess different empathic abilities when compared with healthy controls;and cognitive empathy is a protective factor for conduct disorder.