Mentalisation errors in an ccquired brain injury sample on the recognition of Faux Pas Test

Giles Yeates, M. Milders
{"title":"Mentalisation errors in an ccquired brain injury sample on the recognition of Faux Pas Test","authors":"Giles Yeates, M. Milders","doi":"10.32995/praxispsy.v23i37.186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Mentalisation (also known as theory of mind) difficulties have been reliably demonstrated across different subtypes of adult acquired brain injury (ABI), and the role of such impairments in negative psychological and interpersonal outcomes for survivors and their significant others has been increasingly highlighted. Aims & Methodology: This study aimed to characterise the most salient aspects of mentalising performance in a large ABI sample, relative to matched controls. The participants were 88 (64 male, 24 female) persons with acquired brain injuries (TBI; CVA; other subtypes) participating in community neuro-rehab services (mean age 45.2 years, SD 10.7; mean time since injury 6.69 years; range 1.5 – 31.3 years).) and 50 (34 male, and 16 female) healthy participants (mean age 45.3 years, SD 13.9). The main measure of mentalising operationalised in this study was the Recognition of Faux Pas Test (Stone et al., 2003), a story vignette task completed by patients and controls. Results & Conclusions: Overall, the patient group made significantly more errors in detecting the presence of a faux pas than the matched control group (t (132)=2.24, p<.05, Cohen's d = 0.4), reflective of 1st order mentalising difficulties in the ABI group. However the patients did not make more errors than controls in explaining the reason for the faux pas (p=.75). Patterns in errors made by the patient group are explored, and implications for rehabilitation are discussed.","PeriodicalId":246775,"journal":{"name":"Praxis Psy","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Praxis Psy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32995/praxispsy.v23i37.186","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

Background: Mentalisation (also known as theory of mind) difficulties have been reliably demonstrated across different subtypes of adult acquired brain injury (ABI), and the role of such impairments in negative psychological and interpersonal outcomes for survivors and their significant others has been increasingly highlighted. Aims & Methodology: This study aimed to characterise the most salient aspects of mentalising performance in a large ABI sample, relative to matched controls. The participants were 88 (64 male, 24 female) persons with acquired brain injuries (TBI; CVA; other subtypes) participating in community neuro-rehab services (mean age 45.2 years, SD 10.7; mean time since injury 6.69 years; range 1.5 – 31.3 years).) and 50 (34 male, and 16 female) healthy participants (mean age 45.3 years, SD 13.9). The main measure of mentalising operationalised in this study was the Recognition of Faux Pas Test (Stone et al., 2003), a story vignette task completed by patients and controls. Results & Conclusions: Overall, the patient group made significantly more errors in detecting the presence of a faux pas than the matched control group (t (132)=2.24, p<.05, Cohen's d = 0.4), reflective of 1st order mentalising difficulties in the ABI group. However the patients did not make more errors than controls in explaining the reason for the faux pas (p=.75). Patterns in errors made by the patient group are explored, and implications for rehabilitation are discussed.
脑损伤样本在失态失态测试中的认知错误
背景:在成人获得性脑损伤(ABI)的不同亚型中已经可靠地证明了心理化(也称为心理理论)困难,并且这种损伤在幸存者及其重要他人的负面心理和人际关系结果中的作用日益突出。目的和方法:本研究旨在描述相对于匹配的对照,在一个大的ABI样本中,心智化表现的最显著方面。参与者是88名获得性脑损伤(TBI;脑血管意外;其他亚型)参加社区神经康复服务(平均年龄45.2岁,SD 10.7;平均受伤时间6.69年;范围1.5 - 31.3岁))和50名(34名男性,16名女性)健康参与者(平均年龄45.3岁,SD 13.9)。本研究中运用的心智化的主要测量方法是失态行为识别测试(Stone et al., 2003),这是一个由患者和对照组完成的小故事任务。结果与结论:总体而言,患者组在检测失礼存在方面的错误明显多于匹配的对照组(t (132)=2.24, p<。05, Cohen’s d = 0.4),反映了ABI组的一级心智障碍。然而,在解释失态的原因时,患者并没有比对照组犯更多的错误(p=.75)。模式在错误的病人组进行了探讨,并对康复的影响进行了讨论。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信