4.4 Article

A comparison, of metacognitions in patients with hallucinations, delusions, panic disorder, and non-patient controls

期刊

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 251-256

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00095-5

关键词

metacognition; auditory hallucinations; voices; cognitive

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the hypothesis that metacognitions are a general vulnerability factor for psychological disorder. It was predicted that patients with psychosis (hallucinations or delusions), and patients with panic disorder would score higher than non-patients on measures of metacognition. Moreover, it was hypothesised that patients showing most dysregulation of thinking (voice-hearers) would endorse significantly higher metacognition scores than individuals in the other groups. The Meta-Cognitions Questionnaire (MCQ: Cartwright-Hatton & Wells, Journal of Anxiety Disorders 11 (1997) 279) was administered to patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia spectrum disorders with auditory hallucinations, patients who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia spectrum disorders with persecutory delusions, patients who met DSM-IV criteria for panic disorder and non-patients. The results showed that psychotic patients who experience auditory hallucinations tended to exhibit higher levels of dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs than other patient groups, scoring significantly higher than at least two of the three control groups on positive beliefs about worry, negative beliefs about uncontrollability and danger, cognitive confidence and negative beliefs including superstition, punishment and responsibility. It was also found that the metacognitive beliefs of patients with persecutory delusions and panic patients' were often similar to each other, and elevated in comparison to non-patients, suggesting that such beliefs are generic vulnerability factors. The theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All fights 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

4.4
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