【摘要】：目的：評(píng)估抽動(dòng)障礙（TD）兒童的個(gè)性和家庭情況；探討TD兒童個(gè)性與家庭環(huán)境的相關(guān)性及家庭等因素對(duì)TD兒童個(gè)性的影響。 方法：采用艾森克個(gè)性問卷(EPQ)、家庭環(huán)境量表（FES-CV）及自編家庭情況問卷分別對(duì)63例TD兒童和62例正常兒童進(jìn)行評(píng)定，，通過卡方檢驗(yàn)、t檢驗(yàn)比較兩組兒童一般家庭情況及EPQ和家庭環(huán)境各因子得分。通過t檢驗(yàn)比較TD兒童是否共患ADHD的EPQ和家庭環(huán)境各因子得分。采用person相關(guān)分析對(duì)TD兒童的個(gè)性和家庭環(huán)境各因子進(jìn)行相關(guān)分析。進(jìn)一步選取個(gè)性特征變化明顯的精神質(zhì)和神經(jīng)質(zhì)為因變量，以年齡、性別、抽動(dòng)嚴(yán)重程度、是否共患ADHD及各種家庭因素為自變量進(jìn)行多重線性回歸分析。 結(jié)果：①兩組兒童在養(yǎng)育類型、家庭類型、父親文化程度、母親文化程度比較，差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P0.05）。②兩組兒童EPQ得分比較結(jié)果：TD組精神質(zhì)、神經(jīng)質(zhì)得分高于對(duì)照組，掩飾度得分低于對(duì)照組，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P0.05）；其中TD組男童精神質(zhì)得分高于對(duì)照組，掩飾度得分低于對(duì)照組，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P0.05）；TD組女童神經(jīng)質(zhì)得分高于對(duì)照組，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P0.05）。③TD共患ADHD組神經(jīng)質(zhì)得分高于單純TD組，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P0.05）。④TD組家庭親密度得分低于對(duì)照組，家庭矛盾性得分高于對(duì)照組，差異均有明顯統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P0.01）⑤TD共患ADHD組家庭親密度得分低于單純TD組，差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義（P0.05）。⑥個(gè)性與家庭環(huán)境相關(guān)分析結(jié)果：精神質(zhì)與親密度負(fù)相關(guān)，與矛盾性正相關(guān)；內(nèi)-外向性與情感表達(dá)正相關(guān)；神經(jīng)質(zhì)與矛盾性正相關(guān)。⑦多因素分析結(jié)果顯示： TD兒童精神質(zhì)個(gè)性的主要影響因素為是否共患ADHD、家庭矛盾性、抽動(dòng)嚴(yán)重程度，TD兒童神經(jīng)質(zhì)個(gè)性的主要影響因素為是否共患ADHD、家庭類型、家庭親密度。 結(jié)論：①TD兒童存在較明顯的個(gè)性偏差和有著相對(duì)不良的家庭精神環(huán)境，不同性別、是否共患ADHD其個(gè)性或家庭環(huán)境特征也各不相同。②TD兒童的個(gè)性與家庭環(huán)境因素間存在關(guān)聯(lián)性。③是否共患ADHD、家庭矛盾性和親密度、家庭類型、抽動(dòng)嚴(yán)重程度是TD兒童精神質(zhì)和神經(jīng)質(zhì)個(gè)性的影響因素。
文內(nèi)圖片：
圖片說明：病例組與對(duì)照組EPQ個(gè)性特征比較
[Abstract]:Objective: to evaluate the personality and family status of (TD) children with tic disorder, and to explore the correlation between personality and family environment of TD children and the influence of family factors on the personality of TD children. Methods: 63 TD children and 62 normal children were assessed with Eysenck Personality questionnaire (EPQ), Family Environment scale (FES-CV) and self-designed Family situation questionnaire, respectively. Chi-square test and t test were used to compare the general family situation and the scores of EPQ and family environment factors between the two groups. The scores of EPQ and family environment of TD children with ADHD were compared by t test. Person correlation analysis was used to analyze the factors of personality and family environment of TD children. Furthermore, psychoticism and neuroticism with obvious changes in personality characteristics were selected as dependent variables, and multiple linear regression analysis was carried out according to age, sex, twitching severity, co-occurrence of ADHD and various family factors as independent variables. Results: 1There were significant differences in rearing type, family type, father's educational level and mother's educational level between the two groups (P 0.05). 2 the scores of EPQ in the TD group were higher than those in the control group, and the masking scores were lower than those in the control group (P 0.05). The score of mental quality in TD group was higher than that in control group, and the score of masking degree was lower than that in control group, the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). The neuroticism score of girls in TD group was significantly higher than that in control group (P 0.05). The score of neuroticism in ADHD group was significantly higher than that in TD group (P 0.05). The score of family intimacy in 4TD group was lower than that in control group, and the score of family contradiction was higher than that in control group, the difference was statistically significant (P01). The score of family intimacy in 5TD co-patient ADHD group was lower than that in simple TD group. The difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). 6 the results of correlation analysis between personality and family environment: mental quality was negatively correlated with affinity, and positively correlated with contradiction; There was a positive correlation between introversion and extroversion and positive correlation between neuroticism and contradiction. 7 the results of multivariate analysis showed that the main influencing factors of psychotic personality of TD children were the contradiction of ADHD, family, the severity of twitching, and the main influencing factors of neurotic personality of TD children were ADHD, family type and family intimacy. Conclusion: 1TD children have obvious personality deviation and relatively bad family mental environment, different genders, their personality or family environment characteristics are also different. 2TD children's personality and family environment factors are related. 3 whether ADHD, family contradiction and intimacy, family type, twitching severity are the influencing factors of psychotic and neurotic personality of TD children.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：R749.94

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 葉海翠,謝小玲,金麗娟,朱丹彤;30例Tourette綜合征患兒的智力和記憶功能分析[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)師雜志;2000年10期

2 汪萍;汪曉煒;黃成玲;揚(yáng)新偉;;Tourette綜合征患兒人格特征分析[J];中國(guó)兒童保健雜志;2008年04期

3 匡桂芳;傅平;吳愛勤;冀永娟;辛?xí)躁?;注意缺陷多動(dòng)障礙共患抽動(dòng)障礙兒童智力特征研究[J];中國(guó)兒童保健雜志;2010年07期

4 劉秀梅;初清;李麗霞;衣明紀(jì);;Tourette綜合征兒童的行為特征分析[J];中國(guó)兒童保健雜志;2010年07期

5 匡桂芳;夏穎;吳愛勤;冀永娟;傅平;;注意缺陷多動(dòng)障礙共患抽動(dòng)障礙兒童個(gè)性及自我意識(shí)特征研究[J];中國(guó)兒童保健雜志;2010年10期

6 匡桂芳;鄒華;夏穎;冀永娟;傅平;;注意缺陷多動(dòng)障礙與抽動(dòng)障礙共病兒童的行為特征研究[J];中國(guó)兒童保健雜志;2011年01期

7 辛?xí)躁?周長(zhǎng)虹;陳娟;匡桂芳;;抽動(dòng)障礙兒童智力與注意力特征研究[J];中國(guó)兒童保健雜志;2011年03期

8 薛漳;陳敏榕;;抽動(dòng)障礙兒童個(gè)性特征110例分析[J];中國(guó)兒童保健雜志;2011年12期

9 賀莉娜;夏穎;冀永娟;衡中玉;陳娟;匡桂芳;;伴與不伴ADHD的抽動(dòng)障礙患兒個(gè)性與生活質(zhì)量特征研究[J];中國(guó)兒童保健雜志;2012年01期

10 劉琳,曾昭祥,岳淑英,盧世臣;注意缺陷與多動(dòng)障礙患兒氣質(zhì)特征及其家庭背景研究[J];護(hù)理學(xué)雜志;2005年01期

本文編號(hào)：2511148