A comparative analysis of family adaptability and cohesion ratings among traumatized urban youth.

School psychology quarterly : the official journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association Pub Date : 2018-03-01 DOI:10.1037/spq0000238

Alessandro Bellantuono, Philip A Saigh, Katherine Durham, Constance Dekis, Dusty Hackler, Leah A McGuire, Anastasia E Yasik, Phill V Halamandaris, Richard A Oberfield

{"title":"A comparative analysis of family adaptability and cohesion ratings among traumatized urban youth.","authors":"Alessandro Bellantuono, Philip A Saigh, Katherine Durham, Constance Dekis, Dusty Hackler, Leah A McGuire, Anastasia E Yasik, Phill V Halamandaris, Richard A Oberfield","doi":"10.1037/spq0000238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Given the need to identify psychological risk factors among traumatized youth, this study examined the family functioning of traumatized youth with or without PTSD and a nonclinical sample.Method: The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales, second edition (FACES II; Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982), scores of youth with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; n = 29) were compared with the scores of trauma-exposed youth without PTSD (n = 48) and a nontraumatized comparison group (n = 44). Child diagnostic interviews determined that all participants were free of major comorbid disorders.Results: The FACES II scores of the participants with PTSD were not significantly different from the scores of trauma-exposed youth without PTSD and the nontraumatized comparison group. FACES II scores were also not significantly different between the trauma-exposed youth without PTSD and the nontraumatized comparison group.Conclusions: PTSD and trauma-exposure without PTSD were not associated with variations in the perception of family functioning as measured by the FACES II. (PsycINFO Database Record","PeriodicalId":88124,"journal":{"name":"School psychology quarterly : the official journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association","volume":"33 1","pages":"21-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"School psychology quarterly : the official journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Given the need to identify psychological risk factors among traumatized youth, this study examined the family functioning of traumatized youth with or without PTSD and a nonclinical sample.

Method: The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales, second edition (FACES II; Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982), scores of youth with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; n = 29) were compared with the scores of trauma-exposed youth without PTSD (n = 48) and a nontraumatized comparison group (n = 44). Child diagnostic interviews determined that all participants were free of major comorbid disorders.

Results: The FACES II scores of the participants with PTSD were not significantly different from the scores of trauma-exposed youth without PTSD and the nontraumatized comparison group. FACES II scores were also not significantly different between the trauma-exposed youth without PTSD and the nontraumatized comparison group.

Conclusions: PTSD and trauma-exposure without PTSD were not associated with variations in the perception of family functioning as measured by the FACES II. (PsycINFO Database Record

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

城市创伤青少年家庭适应能力与凝聚力的比较分析。

目的:考虑到有必要确定创伤青年的心理风险因素，本研究考察了有或没有创伤后应激障碍的创伤青年和非临床样本的家庭功能。方法:《家庭适应性与凝聚力评价量表》(FACES II)第二版;Olson, Portner， & Bell, 1982)，创伤后应激障碍(PTSD;n = 29)与创伤暴露青年(n = 48)和非创伤对照组(n = 44)的得分进行比较。儿童诊断访谈确定所有参与者均无主要合并症。结果:创伤后应激障碍被试的face II得分与创伤暴露青年无创伤后应激障碍和无创伤对照组的得分无显著差异。无创伤后应激障碍的创伤暴露青年与无创伤对照组的FACES II得分也无显著差异。结论:创伤后应激障碍和创伤暴露无创伤后应激障碍与面孔II测量的家庭功能感知的变化无关。(PsycINFO数据库记录

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

School psychology quarterly : the official journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association

自引率

0.00%

发文量