4.5 Article

Guilt and depression: Two different factors in individuals with negative symptoms of schizophrenia

期刊

EUROPEAN PSYCHIATRY
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 327-331

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2012.02.008

关键词

Schizophrenia; Calgary Depression Scale (CDSS); Depression; Factor analysis; Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Depression is common among schizophrenia patients and constitutes a major risk factor for suicide. Calgary Depression Scale (CDSS) is the most widely used instrument for measuring depression in schizophrenia. CDSS has never been examined in patients with predominant negative symptoms, thus possibly hindering both accurate assessment and understanding of the underlying mechanisms. The current study is the first to examine CDSS' structure in this population. Methods: We conducted Principal Component Analysis (n = 184) for the CDSS items. Thereafter, we correlated emerging factors with psychopathological, demographic and side effect variables. We assessed internal consistency and reliability of the emerging factors, as well as demographic correlations. Results: The analysis yielded two factors: depression-hopelessness and guilt. Factors distinctly correlated with separate variables. Removal of item #7 (early waking) improved internal consistency. The depression-hopelessness factor had an inverse correlation with negative symptoms, and positive correlation with neuroleptic side effects. Conclusions: CDSS structure indicated of two separate factors, i.e., depression-hopelessness and guilt, suggesting separate underlying processes. The validity of the scale might benefit from a two-fold structure and the removal/replacement of item #7 (early waking). A noteworthy inverse correlation was found between the depression factor and negative symptoms, as well as a positive correlation between depression factor and neuroleptic side effects. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据