紧张型头痛军人患者的人格特征、应对方式及心理控制源  

Personality traits, coping style and psychological locus of control of military patients with tension-type headache

作　　者：黄秀琴[1] 张倩[1] 杨小柳[1] 李志宇[2] 何晓冰[1] 骆利[1] 苑宏[3] 

机构地区：[1]北京军区总医院心理科,北京市100700 [2]北京军区总医院肿瘤科,北京市100700 [3]北京军区联勤部卫生防疫处,北京市100700

出　　处：《中国临床康复》2005年第24期54-55,共2页Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation

摘　　要：目的:探讨紧张型头痛军人患者的人格特征、应对方式和心理控制源的特征。方法:选择2001-07/2003-07解放军第四六四医院诊断为紧张型头痛的35例住院军人患者作为紧张型头痛组,以35名正常军人作为对照组。人格评定采用艾森克人格问卷(共88项,包含神经质,内-外向,精神质,掩饰性4个人格维度,神经质,精神质,掩饰性分值越高表示性格越倾向该维度,内-外向分值越高,表示性格越倾向外向);应对方式评定采用应对方式问卷(是自评问卷,共有100个条目,分为解决问题、自责、求助、幻想、退避、合理化6个分量表。每个分量表分值越高表示越倾向使用该应对方式);心理控制源评定采用Rotter编制的内在-外在心理控制源量表犤含23个项目和6个插入题。得分范围在0(极端内控)到23(极端外控)之间犦。结果:纳入35例紧张型头痛患者,35例正常军人,均进入结果分析,无脱落者。①两组艾森克人格问卷各维度分值比较:紧张型头痛患者神经质和精神质得分高于对照组(57.83±7.27,49.17±7.14;55.36±8.93,47.96±8.78,P<0.05);而内-外向维度和掩饰性维度得分两组间差异不显著。②两组应付方式各因子分值比较:紧张型头痛组在解决问题和求助两个因子上的得分低于对照组(0.52±0.17,0.89±0.21;0.41±0.17,0.78±0.18,P<0.05);而紧张型头痛组逃避因子的得分高于对照组(0.63±0.17,0.31±0.16,P<0.05);两组在幻想、自责及合理化3因子上的得分差异不显著。③内在-外在心理控制源量表得分比较:紧张型头痛组得分高于对照组(11.76±0.29,9.39±0.46,P<0.01)。结论:紧张型头痛军人患者内在一外在心理控制源量表评分均高于健康人,证明他们有更强的神经质和精神质倾向,存在人格方面的问题。他们认为事件的结局主要由外部因素所影响,遇到问题更多采用逃避的应对方法,而较少采用问题解决和求助的方式。AIM： To investigate the personality traits, coping style and the character of psychological locus of control in patients with tension-type headache. METHODS： Between July 2001 and July 2003, 35 military inpatients with tension-type headache （tension-type headache group） in the 464 Hospital of Chinese PLA and 35 normal soldiers （control group） partiei＇pated in the study. The personality was evaluated with Eysenek personality questionnaire （consisted of 88 items, including 4 dimensions of neurotieism, introversion-extraversion, psyehoticism and lie; The higher the scores of neurotieism, psyehotieism and lie, the more inclining to the dimension of the personality; The higher the score of introversion- extraversion, the more extraversion of personality）. The coping style was assessed with the coping style questionnaire （a self-rating questionnaire consisted of 100 items, including 6 subscales of solving problem, self- blame, asking for help, illusion, withdrawal, rationalization; The higher the score of the subscale, the more frequently the coping style was used）. The psychological locus of control was evaluated with the internal-external locus of control scale designed by Rotter [consisted of 23 items and 6 inserted questions, the scores ranged 0 （extremely internal control） to 23 points （extremely external control）]. RESULTS： All the 35 patients with tension-type headache and 35 normal soldiers were involved in the analysis of results, no one lost. ① The scores of dimensions in Eysenek personality questionnaire： The scores of neurotieism and psyehotieism were higher in the tension-type headache group than in the control group （57.83±7.27, 49.17±7.14; 55.36±8.93, 47.96±8.78, P 〈 0.05）, and there were insignificant differences in the scores of introversion-extraversion and lie between the two groups. ② The scores of factors coping style： The scores of solving problems and asking for help in the tension-type headache group were higher than those in the control group �

关 键 词：紧张型头痛 人格评价 心理学 军事 

分 类 号：R749.91[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学]