比较不同评估类型的情绪反应性与精神病之间的关系:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Hedwig Eisenbarth, Femi Carrington, Matthew S Shane, Kasia Uzieblo, Sally Olderbak, David S Kosson
{"title":"比较不同评估类型的情绪反应性与精神病之间的关系:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Hedwig Eisenbarth, Femi Carrington, Matthew S Shane, Kasia Uzieblo, Sally Olderbak, David S Kosson","doi":"10.1017/S109285292500015X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although psychopathic personality traits are widely reported to be related to reduced reactivity to emotion-eliciting situations, findings are not consistent. It has been argued that these differences could be related to variations in the way psychopathy is measured. To examine whether measurement variance resulting from the use of clinical assessment versus self-report assessment could be driving such differences, this systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the comparability of relations between psychopathic traits and responsiveness to emotion-inducing tasks for clinical versus self-report measures. The systematic review resulted in eight studies and 131 effect sizes, which included studies of emotion categorization, emotion regulation, decision-making, and executive functioning tasks. Robust Variance Estimation correlated effects models revealed no significant differences between effect sizes for clinical (PCL-R) versus self-report (PPI, SRP, and LSRP) assessment-based psychopathic traits and emotion tasks. Despite the small number of studies that included both clinical and self-report assessments of psychopathy, these results do not provide any evidence for an assessment-based difference in correlations with emotional responsiveness across tasks. The findings also show no associations between scores on emotional responsiveness and indices of psychopathy. Future research on emotional responsiveness in psychopathy should include both assessment types to be able to increase the research basis for the comparison.</p>","PeriodicalId":10505,"journal":{"name":"CNS Spectrums","volume":" ","pages":"e32"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the relationship between emotional responsiveness and psychopathy across assessment types: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hedwig Eisenbarth, Femi Carrington, Matthew S Shane, Kasia Uzieblo, Sally Olderbak, David S Kosson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S109285292500015X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although psychopathic personality traits are widely reported to be related to reduced reactivity to emotion-eliciting situations, findings are not consistent. It has been argued that these differences could be related to variations in the way psychopathy is measured. To examine whether measurement variance resulting from the use of clinical assessment versus self-report assessment could be driving such differences, this systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the comparability of relations between psychopathic traits and responsiveness to emotion-inducing tasks for clinical versus self-report measures. The systematic review resulted in eight studies and 131 effect sizes, which included studies of emotion categorization, emotion regulation, decision-making, and executive functioning tasks. Robust Variance Estimation correlated effects models revealed no significant differences between effect sizes for clinical (PCL-R) versus self-report (PPI, SRP, and LSRP) assessment-based psychopathic traits and emotion tasks. Despite the small number of studies that included both clinical and self-report assessments of psychopathy, these results do not provide any evidence for an assessment-based difference in correlations with emotional responsiveness across tasks. The findings also show no associations between scores on emotional responsiveness and indices of psychopathy. Future research on emotional responsiveness in psychopathy should include both assessment types to be able to increase the research basis for the comparison.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CNS Spectrums\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CNS Spectrums\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S109285292500015X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CNS Spectrums","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S109285292500015X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管精神病人格特征被广泛报道与情绪诱发情境的反应性降低有关,但研究结果并不一致。有人认为,这些差异可能与衡量精神病的方式不同有关。为了检验使用临床评估和自我报告评估产生的测量差异是否会导致这种差异,本系统综述和荟萃分析调查了临床和自我报告测量中精神病态特征和对情绪诱导任务的反应性之间关系的可比性。系统回顾得出了8项研究和131个效应大小,其中包括情绪分类、情绪调节、决策和执行功能任务的研究。稳健方差估计相关效应模型显示,临床(PCL-R)与自我报告(PPI、SRP和LSRP)评估为基础的精神病态特征和情绪任务的效应量无显著差异。尽管有少数研究包括了精神病的临床和自我报告评估,但这些结果并没有提供任何证据来证明基于评估的差异与不同任务的情绪反应的相关性。研究结果还显示,情绪反应得分与精神病态指数之间没有关联。未来对精神病患者情绪反应的研究应包括两种评估类型,以增加比较的研究基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the relationship between emotional responsiveness and psychopathy across assessment types: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although psychopathic personality traits are widely reported to be related to reduced reactivity to emotion-eliciting situations, findings are not consistent. It has been argued that these differences could be related to variations in the way psychopathy is measured. To examine whether measurement variance resulting from the use of clinical assessment versus self-report assessment could be driving such differences, this systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the comparability of relations between psychopathic traits and responsiveness to emotion-inducing tasks for clinical versus self-report measures. The systematic review resulted in eight studies and 131 effect sizes, which included studies of emotion categorization, emotion regulation, decision-making, and executive functioning tasks. Robust Variance Estimation correlated effects models revealed no significant differences between effect sizes for clinical (PCL-R) versus self-report (PPI, SRP, and LSRP) assessment-based psychopathic traits and emotion tasks. Despite the small number of studies that included both clinical and self-report assessments of psychopathy, these results do not provide any evidence for an assessment-based difference in correlations with emotional responsiveness across tasks. The findings also show no associations between scores on emotional responsiveness and indices of psychopathy. Future research on emotional responsiveness in psychopathy should include both assessment types to be able to increase the research basis for the comparison.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CNS Spectrums
CNS Spectrums 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.10%
发文量
239
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CNS Spectrums covers all aspects of the clinical neurosciences, neurotherapeutics, and neuropsychopharmacology, particularly those pertinent to the clinician and clinical investigator. The journal features focused, in-depth reviews, perspectives, and original research articles. New therapeutics of all types in psychiatry, mental health, and neurology are emphasized, especially first in man studies, proof of concept studies, and translational basic neuroscience studies. Subject coverage spans the full spectrum of neuropsychiatry, focusing on those crossing traditional boundaries between neurology and psychiatry.
×
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