4.2 Article

Latent Classes of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in Two Samples of Bereaved People

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRESS MANAGEMENT
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 401-410

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/str0000121

关键词

posttraumatic stress disorder; grief; bereavement; death; homicide

资金

  1. Victim Fund
  2. University of Groningen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the heterogeneity of posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptoms has been well-documented in various traumatized samples, no study has investigated the heterogeneity of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, PTS symptomatology in samples exclusively composed of bereaved people. We examined what classes could be distinguished based on the endorsement of self-rated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, PTS symptoms in a sample of 509 bereaved people confronted with losses due to a variety of causes and a sample of 331 homicidally bereaved people. Associations between class membership and sociodemographic and loss-related variables were also examined. On the basis of latent class analyses, conducted in both samples separately, we identified three PTS classes: a No disturbance, Intermediate disturbance, and Pervasive disturbance class, characterized by low, moderate, and high probability of endorsement of PTS symptoms, respectively. In both samples, the largest class was characterized by participants who endorsed intermediate PTS symptom levels. As expected, being a woman, more closely related to the deceased person, more recently bereaved, and (in the sample of 509 bereaved people) confronted with unexpected loss were related to classes with more PTS disturbances. There is evidence that intermediate PTS levels are associated with negative outcomes. Because this seems to be a relative large group in the current study, it is useful to further our knowledge about variables underlying and maintaining subclinical PTS levels.

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

4.2
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