Differential linguistic patterns across Rorschach, TAT, and SCT in individuals with PTSD.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Hongsin Ahn, Ji Sun Hong, So Hee Lee, Doug Hyun Han
{"title":"Differential linguistic patterns across Rorschach, TAT, and SCT in individuals with PTSD.","authors":"Hongsin Ahn, Ji Sun Hong, So Hee Lee, Doug Hyun Han","doi":"10.1080/20008066.2026.2700825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> While prior studies have examined linguistic markers of PTSD using everyday discourse or autobiographical narratives, comparative studies identifying specific markers across different projective personality tests remain limited.<b>Objective:</b> To investigate whether language features in projective personality tests differentiate individuals with PTSD from non-PTSD controls and assess their predictive value for symptom severity.<b>Method:</b> Verbatim transcripts from 283 participants (183 PTSD, 100 controls) across the Rorschach, TAT, and SCT were analysed using NLP across six categories: negative emotion, positive emotion, insight, causation, body-related, and self-focus. ANCOVAs with Bonferroni correction compared linguistic indicators between groups controlling for age and sex. Hierarchical regression analyses assessed predictive validity for symptom severity.<b>Results:</b> Following Bonferroni correction (α = .0028), four indicators showed significant group differences (ηp² = .036-.092): Rorschach Negative Emotion, SCT Positive Emotion, SCT Insight, and TAT Negative Emotion. In the PTSD group, TAT Negative Emotion was the strongest cross-symptom predictor of PTSD, depressive, and anxiety severity. Reduced Rorschach Body-related language and elevated SCT Insight were associated with greater symptom burden. TAT Positive Emotion negatively predicted symptom severity. In the non-PTSD group, SCT Self-Focus was the strongest predictor of PTSD-related severity, and SCT Positive Emotion negatively predicted anxiety. A sensitivity analysis revealed that SCT Positive Emotion and TAT Negative Emotion did not replicate under a more conservative Core Lexicon and should be treated as exploratory; only Rorschach Negative Emotion and SCT Insight were robust across lexicon configurations.<b>Conclusions:</b> Individuals meeting PTSD criteria showed reduced somatic language and elevated negative emotional expression, while self-referential processing and positive emotional expression emerged as salient markers in non-clinical individuals, though these differences should be interpreted cautiously given substantial demographic imbalances. These preliminary findings suggest that projective linguistic analysis may have potential as a supplementary approach in trauma-related research, pending external validation and replication in independent datasets.</p>","PeriodicalId":12055,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","volume":"17 1","pages":"2700825"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13403357/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2026.2700825","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While prior studies have examined linguistic markers of PTSD using everyday discourse or autobiographical narratives, comparative studies identifying specific markers across different projective personality tests remain limited.Objective: To investigate whether language features in projective personality tests differentiate individuals with PTSD from non-PTSD controls and assess their predictive value for symptom severity.Method: Verbatim transcripts from 283 participants (183 PTSD, 100 controls) across the Rorschach, TAT, and SCT were analysed using NLP across six categories: negative emotion, positive emotion, insight, causation, body-related, and self-focus. ANCOVAs with Bonferroni correction compared linguistic indicators between groups controlling for age and sex. Hierarchical regression analyses assessed predictive validity for symptom severity.Results: Following Bonferroni correction (α = .0028), four indicators showed significant group differences (ηp² = .036-.092): Rorschach Negative Emotion, SCT Positive Emotion, SCT Insight, and TAT Negative Emotion. In the PTSD group, TAT Negative Emotion was the strongest cross-symptom predictor of PTSD, depressive, and anxiety severity. Reduced Rorschach Body-related language and elevated SCT Insight were associated with greater symptom burden. TAT Positive Emotion negatively predicted symptom severity. In the non-PTSD group, SCT Self-Focus was the strongest predictor of PTSD-related severity, and SCT Positive Emotion negatively predicted anxiety. A sensitivity analysis revealed that SCT Positive Emotion and TAT Negative Emotion did not replicate under a more conservative Core Lexicon and should be treated as exploratory; only Rorschach Negative Emotion and SCT Insight were robust across lexicon configurations.Conclusions: Individuals meeting PTSD criteria showed reduced somatic language and elevated negative emotional expression, while self-referential processing and positive emotional expression emerged as salient markers in non-clinical individuals, though these differences should be interpreted cautiously given substantial demographic imbalances. These preliminary findings suggest that projective linguistic analysis may have potential as a supplementary approach in trauma-related research, pending external validation and replication in independent datasets.

PTSD患者罗夏测验、TAT和SCT的差异语言模式。
背景:虽然先前的研究使用日常话语或自传体叙述来检查PTSD的语言标记,但通过不同投射人格测试确定特定标记的比较研究仍然有限。目的:探讨投射人格测试中的语言特征是否能区分PTSD患者和非PTSD对照组,并评估其对症状严重程度的预测价值。方法:对283名被试(183名PTSD, 100名对照)的罗夏、TAT和SCT逐字记录进行NLP分析,包括消极情绪、积极情绪、洞察力、因果关系、身体相关和自我关注六个类别。采用Bonferroni校正的ANCOVAs比较了控制年龄和性别的两组之间的语言指标。分层回归分析评估症状严重程度的预测效度。结果:经Bonferroni校正(α =。0028),罗夏负性情绪、SCT积极情绪、SCT洞察力和TAT负性情绪4项指标组间差异显著(ηp²= 0.036 - 0.092)。在PTSD组中,TAT负性情绪是PTSD、抑郁和焦虑严重程度的最强交叉症状预测因子。减少罗夏身体相关语言和提高SCT洞察力与更大的症状负担相关。TAT积极情绪负向预测症状严重程度。在非ptsd组中,SCT自我关注是ptsd相关严重程度的最强预测因子,而SCT积极情绪负向预测焦虑。敏感度分析显示,SCT积极情绪和TAT消极情绪在较为保守的核心词典下不存在重复,应视为探索性的;只有罗夏负性情绪测验和SCT洞察测验在词汇配置上具有鲁棒性。结论:符合PTSD标准的个体表现出躯体语言的减少和消极情绪表达的增加,而自我参照加工和积极情绪表达在非临床个体中成为显著的标记,尽管这些差异应该谨慎地解释,因为存在巨大的人口失衡。这些初步研究结果表明,投射语言分析可能有潜力作为创伤相关研究的补充方法,有待外部验证和独立数据集的复制。
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
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
12.00%
发文量
153
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) is a peer-reviewed open access interdisciplinary journal owned by the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) aims to engage scholars, clinicians and researchers in the vital issues of how to understand, prevent and treat the consequences of stress and trauma, including but not limited to, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive disorders, substance abuse, burnout, and neurobiological or physical consequences, using the latest research or clinical experience in these areas. The journal shares ESTSS’ mission to advance and disseminate scientific knowledge about traumatic stress. Papers may address individual events, repeated or chronic (complex) trauma, large scale disasters, or violence. Being open access, the European Journal of Psychotraumatology is also evidence of ESTSS’ stand on free accessibility of research publications to a wider community via the web. The European Journal of Psychotraumatology seeks to attract contributions from academics and practitioners from diverse professional backgrounds, including, but not restricted to, those in mental health, social sciences, and health and welfare services. Contributions from outside Europe are welcome. The journal welcomes original basic and clinical research articles that consolidate and expand the theoretical and professional basis of the field of traumatic stress; Review articles including meta-analyses; short communications presenting new ideas or early-stage promising research; study protocols that describe proposed or ongoing research; case reports examining a single individual or event in a real‑life context; clinical practice papers sharing experience from the clinic; letters to the Editor debating articles already published in the Journal; inaugural Lectures; conference abstracts and book reviews. Both quantitative and qualitative research is welcome.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书