4.7 Article

Executive functioning deficits and childhood trauma in juvenile violent offenders in China

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 207, 期 3, 页码 218-224

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.09.013

关键词

Cambridge Automated Neuropsychological; Testing Battery (CANTAB); Executive function; Violence; Childhood trauma

资金

  1. Chongqing Association for Science and Technology [14]
  2. Chongqing Medical University Graduate Student Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A large body of evidence indicates that violent offenders have executive functioning deficits. However, previous studies have not considered childhood trauma, which is likely to influence the executive functioning of violent offenders. The aim of the present study was to compare the difference of executive functioning among juvenile violent offenders, with non-violent offenders and normal controls, and then to analyse whether executive functioning was affected independently of childhood trauma. In addition to using a battery of tests assessing executive functioning including the Intra/Extradimensional Shift Test(IED), the Stockings of Cambridge Test (SOC), and the Spatial Working Memory Test (SWM) from the Cambridge Automated Neuropsychological Testing Battery (CANTAB), the short form of the Chinese Revision of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-RC) and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-28 item Short Form (CTQ) were also used among 107 violent offenders, 107 non-violent offenders and 107 normal controls. Our results showed that both offender groups obtained significantly lower estimated Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores and experienced more childhood trauma than did normal controls. Violent offenders showed impaired executive functioning on tasks of attention set-shifting, working memory and planning. Finally, spatial working memory (SWM) deficits, particularly SWM strategy scores, may be associated with childhood trauma. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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