中华行为医学与脑科学杂志
中華行為醫學與腦科學雜誌
중화행위의학여뇌과학잡지
Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science
2015年
10期
928-931
,共4页
吕淑云%王欣%李月娥%马燕娟%徐向东
呂淑雲%王訢%李月娥%馬燕娟%徐嚮東
려숙운%왕흔%리월아%마연연%서향동
民族%抑郁症%人格
民族%抑鬱癥%人格
민족%억욱증%인격
National%Depression%Personality
目的 比较维吾尔族与汉族人格差异及对抑郁症的影响.方法 选取住院抑郁症患者:维吾尔族44例,汉族73例,及汉族正常对照组41名.采用明尼苏达多相人格调查表(Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory,MMPI)、艾森克人格问卷(Eysenck personality questionnaire,EPQ)和卡特尔16种人格因素测验(Cattell's 16 personality factor,16PF)进行测查.结果 MMPI维族抑郁症组F、Hs、D、Hy、Mf、Pt、Pa和Sc的T分均值高于70分,汉族抑郁症组Hs、D、Hy和Pa的T分均值高于70分.维族抑郁症组与汉族抑郁症组比较只有F[(76.98± 16.01)分vs(67.16± 13.51)分,P＜0.01]、Pt[(72.09± 14.22)分 vs(66.82±11.12)分,P＜0.05]和Sc[(73.43± 13.02)分 vs (68.62±11.14)分,P＜0.05]差异有统计学意义,其他7个量表均差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).而汉族抑郁症组与汉族正常对照组除Pd差异无统计学意义外(P＞0.05),其他9个量表均差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).EPQ维族抑郁症组与汉族抑郁症组比较:精神质、内外向、神经质和掩饰性4个量表均差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).而汉族抑郁症组与汉族正常对照组比较,4个量表均差异有统计学意义[(57.12± 13.01)分vs(45.32±11.42)分;(42.70± 10.59)分vs(47.11±10.88)分;(66.98±6.85)分vs (54.10±9.15)分;(43.15±10.85)分vs(52.95±8.16)分,均P＜0.01].16PF维族抑郁症组与汉族抑郁症组比较,仅智慧性B(P＜0.01)、独立性Q2 (P＜ 0.05)两组差异有统计学意义,其他各人格维度均差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).汉族抑郁症组与汉族正常对照组比较,在乐群性A、稳定性C、兴奋性D、有恒性G、敢为性H、敏感性Ⅰ、怀疑性L、忧虑性O、自律性Q3、紧张性Q4(均P＜0.01)和实验性Q1(P＜0.05)两组得分均差异有统计学意义.智慧性B,恃强性E,幻想性M,世故性N,独立性Q2两组差异无统计学意义(均P＞0.05).结论 抑郁症的人格模型在维汉民族之间具有跨民族文化的一致性,而与正常人存在多维度的差异.提示维汉抑郁症可能存在共同的特征性的病理性人格模型.维汉民族之间民族文化和个性的差异带来的是维汉民族个性的多样性,并不构成维汉抑郁症的病理性人格基础.
目的 比較維吾爾族與漢族人格差異及對抑鬱癥的影響.方法 選取住院抑鬱癥患者:維吾爾族44例,漢族73例,及漢族正常對照組41名.採用明尼囌達多相人格調查錶(Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory,MMPI)、艾森剋人格問捲(Eysenck personality questionnaire,EPQ)和卡特爾16種人格因素測驗(Cattell's 16 personality factor,16PF)進行測查.結果 MMPI維族抑鬱癥組F、Hs、D、Hy、Mf、Pt、Pa和Sc的T分均值高于70分,漢族抑鬱癥組Hs、D、Hy和Pa的T分均值高于70分.維族抑鬱癥組與漢族抑鬱癥組比較隻有F[(76.98± 16.01)分vs(67.16± 13.51)分,P＜0.01]、Pt[(72.09± 14.22)分 vs(66.82±11.12)分,P＜0.05]和Sc[(73.43± 13.02)分 vs (68.62±11.14)分,P＜0.05]差異有統計學意義,其他7箇量錶均差異無統計學意義(P＞0.05).而漢族抑鬱癥組與漢族正常對照組除Pd差異無統計學意義外(P＞0.05),其他9箇量錶均差異有統計學意義(P＜0.01).EPQ維族抑鬱癥組與漢族抑鬱癥組比較:精神質、內外嚮、神經質和掩飾性4箇量錶均差異無統計學意義(P＞0.05).而漢族抑鬱癥組與漢族正常對照組比較,4箇量錶均差異有統計學意義[(57.12± 13.01)分vs(45.32±11.42)分;(42.70± 10.59)分vs(47.11±10.88)分;(66.98±6.85)分vs (54.10±9.15)分;(43.15±10.85)分vs(52.95±8.16)分,均P＜0.01].16PF維族抑鬱癥組與漢族抑鬱癥組比較,僅智慧性B(P＜0.01)、獨立性Q2 (P＜ 0.05)兩組差異有統計學意義,其他各人格維度均差異無統計學意義(P＞0.05).漢族抑鬱癥組與漢族正常對照組比較,在樂群性A、穩定性C、興奮性D、有恆性G、敢為性H、敏感性Ⅰ、懷疑性L、憂慮性O、自律性Q3、緊張性Q4(均P＜0.01)和實驗性Q1(P＜0.05)兩組得分均差異有統計學意義.智慧性B,恃彊性E,幻想性M,世故性N,獨立性Q2兩組差異無統計學意義(均P＞0.05).結論 抑鬱癥的人格模型在維漢民族之間具有跨民族文化的一緻性,而與正常人存在多維度的差異.提示維漢抑鬱癥可能存在共同的特徵性的病理性人格模型.維漢民族之間民族文化和箇性的差異帶來的是維漢民族箇性的多樣性,併不構成維漢抑鬱癥的病理性人格基礎.
목적 비교유오이족여한족인격차이급대억욱증적영향.방법 선취주원억욱증환자:유오이족44례,한족73례,급한족정상대조조41명.채용명니소체다상인격조사표(Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory,MMPI)、애삼극인격문권(Eysenck personality questionnaire,EPQ)화잡특이16충인격인소측험(Cattell's 16 personality factor,16PF)진행측사.결과 MMPI유족억욱증조F、Hs、D、Hy、Mf、Pt、Pa화Sc적T분균치고우70분,한족억욱증조Hs、D、Hy화Pa적T분균치고우70분.유족억욱증조여한족억욱증조비교지유F[(76.98± 16.01)분vs(67.16± 13.51)분,P＜0.01]、Pt[(72.09± 14.22)분 vs(66.82±11.12)분,P＜0.05]화Sc[(73.43± 13.02)분 vs (68.62±11.14)분,P＜0.05]차이유통계학의의,기타7개량표균차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).이한족억욱증조여한족정상대조조제Pd차이무통계학의의외(P＞0.05),기타9개량표균차이유통계학의의(P＜0.01).EPQ유족억욱증조여한족억욱증조비교:정신질、내외향、신경질화엄식성4개량표균차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).이한족억욱증조여한족정상대조조비교,4개량표균차이유통계학의의[(57.12± 13.01)분vs(45.32±11.42)분;(42.70± 10.59)분vs(47.11±10.88)분;(66.98±6.85)분vs (54.10±9.15)분;(43.15±10.85)분vs(52.95±8.16)분,균P＜0.01].16PF유족억욱증조여한족억욱증조비교,부지혜성B(P＜0.01)、독립성Q2 (P＜ 0.05)량조차이유통계학의의,기타각인격유도균차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).한족억욱증조여한족정상대조조비교,재악군성A、은정성C、흥강성D、유항성G、감위성H、민감성Ⅰ、부의성L、우필성O、자률성Q3、긴장성Q4(균P＜0.01)화실험성Q1(P＜0.05)량조득분균차이유통계학의의.지혜성B,시강성E,환상성M,세고성N,독립성Q2량조차이무통계학의의(균P＞0.05).결론 억욱증적인격모형재유한민족지간구유과민족문화적일치성,이여정상인존재다유도적차이.제시유한억욱증가능존재공동적특정성적병이성인격모형.유한민족지간민족문화화개성적차이대래적시유한민족개성적다양성,병불구성유한억욱증적병이성인격기출.
Objective To compare the differences of personality in patients with depression between Uighurs and Han Chinese.Method Hospitalized depressed patients were selected including 44 cases of Uygur people,73 cases of Han people and Han people with normal control 41 cases.Using Minnesota Multiphasic Per-sonality Inventory(MMPI), Eysenck Personality Questionnai(EPQ) and Cattell's 16 Personality Factor (16PF) to make the survey.Results In MMPI : Uighur depression group's factors F,Hs, D,Hy,Pt,Pa and Sc's T score were all higher than 70,and Han depression group' s factors Hs, D,Hy,and T score of Pa were all higher than 70.Only F (76.98±16.01 vs 67.16±13.51, P＜0.01), Pt(72.09± 14.22 vs 66.82± 11.12, P＜0.05) and Sc (73.43± 13.02 vs 68.62± 11.14, P＜0.05) had statistically significant differences between the two groups.Comparing Han depression group with Han normal control group,only Pd score was not significantly different,the other nine scales were statistically significant (P＜0.01).In EPQ: comparing Uighur depression group with Han depression group,the 4 kinds of scale (extroversion, psychoticism, neuroticism and conceal) differences were not statistically significant (P＞0.05).And Han depression group compared with the Han control group, four scales were statistically significant differences (P＜0.01).In 16 PF: comparing Uighur depression group with Han depression group, only the wisdom of B (P＜0.01) and the independence of the Q2 (P＜0.05) between the two groups were statistically siguificant,other personality dimensions had no significant difference (P＞0.05).Comparing Han depression group with Han normal control group, the factors of gregariousness A, stability C, excitability D,perseverance G, boldness H, sensitivity I,skeptical L,anxiety and O,self-discipline Q3,tension Q4 (P＜0.0l) and experimental Q 1 (P＜0.05) differences were statistically significant, and the factors of Wisdom of B, aggressiveness E, fantasy M, sophisticated sex N, independence Q2 were not statistically significant (P＞0.05).Conclusion The personality model of depression between the Uygur and Han nationality has the consistency of national culture,and differences with normal people.Prompt Uygur and han depression may have a common characteristic of pathological personality model.Uighur and han ethnic differences in national culture and personality is the character of diversity,is not a Uighur and Han the pathological basis of personality of depression.
