4.5 Article

Cloninger's temperament and character dimensions of personality in patients with major depressive disorder

期刊

COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHIATRY
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 556-561

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2008.11.012

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this present study, we examined the relationship between the Cloninger's dimensional psychobiologic model of personality and depression in an outpatient population with major depressive disorder. Eighty-one depressed Outpatients (67 women, 14 men) and 51 healthy controls (35 women, 16 men) filled out the Turkish version of the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI). Depression severity was evaluated by using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the 21-item Beck Depression Inventory. Depressed patients exhibited statistically significant higher scores for harm avoidance and lower scores for self-directedness compared to healthy controls. Sentimentality (RD1) and dependence (RD4) subscale scores of reward dependence and spiritual acceptance (ST3) subscale of self-transcendence were significantly higher; attachment (RD3) subscale of reward dependence, responsibility (SDI), purposefulness (SD2), resourcefulness (SD3), and congruent second nature (SD5) subscales of self-directedness were significantly lower in the depressed group. In the depressed patient group, main effects of sex were significant for reward dependence and cooperativeness; the scores of both dimensions were higher for women, The Beck Inventory was positively correlated with harm avoidance and negatively correlated with novelty seeking and self-directedness dimensions (P < .05). The duration of depression (16.33 +/- 20.18 months) or the mean onset age of depression (28.68 +/- 8.11 years) did not show significant correlations with TCI scales. This study confirms the relationship between harm avoidance and depression and Suggests a relationship between self-directedness and depression. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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