Korean Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine (정신신체의학)

Korean Psychosomatic Society (한국정신신체의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Differential Response Style on the Personality Assessment Inventory according to Compensation-Seeking Status in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury

외상성 뇌손상 환자에서 보상추구 여부에 따른 성격평가질문지 반응 양식의 차이

  • Kim, Yeon-Jin (Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kweon, Seok-Joon (NewWorld Hospital) ;
  • Rho, Seung-Ho (Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Paik, Young-Suk (Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Wonkwang University)
  • 김연진 (원광대학교 의과대학 정신건강의학교실) ;
  • 권석준 (신세계효병원) ;
  • 노승호 (원광대학교 의과대학 정신건강의학교실) ;
  • 백영석 (원광대학교 의과대학 정신건강의학교실)
  • Received : 2015.03.03
  • Accepted : 2015.06.10
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives : This study examined the characteristics and differences of PAI(Personality Assessment Inventory) profile between compensation-seeking(CS) and treatment-seeking(TS) patients with traumatic brain injury(TBI) and assessed the clinical meaning of the characteristics and differences of profiles between the two groups. Methods : 36 TBI patients who visited the Wonkwang University Hospital were selected. The patients were categorized as compensation-seeking TBI patients(n=22) and treatment-seeking TBI patients(n=14). The PAI scales and subscales were used to compare differences between two groups. t-verification for each variable and comparison analysis were performed. Results:In validity scales, CS group showed significantly higher NIM scores and lower PIM scores than TS groups. In full scales, CS group showed significantly higher SOM, ANX, ARD, DEP, and SCZ scores than TS group. In subscales, CS group showed significantly higher SOM-S, ANX-A, ARD-P, DEP(-C, A, P), (MAN-I), PAR-H, SCZ(-T, P), BOR(-A, N), and ANT-S scores than TS groups. In supplementary scales, CS group showed significantly higher SUI, NON and AGG-P, and lower RXR scores than TS group. Conclusions:There were significant differences in PAI scales with validity scales, some full and subscales according to compensation seeking status in TBI patients. The CS patients tended to exaggerate their symptoms on PAI, and showed higher scores representing somatic preoccupation and emotional distress. These results show the usefulness of PAI in reflecting the significant psychological differences between two groups.

연구목적 이 연구는 외상성 뇌손상 환자들 중 금전적 보상 추구 여부에 따라 나타난 성격평가질문지(PAI) 결과의 특징에는 어떠한 차이가 있는지 알아보기 위하여 실시되었다. 방 법 일 대학병원 정신건강의학과에 내원하여 PAI를 실시한 외상성 뇌손상 환자들을 대상으로 보상추구 여부에 따라 보상집단(N=22)과 치료집단(N=14)으로 나누어 각 집단의 PAI 전체척도와 하위척도 프로파일을 비교분석하였다. 결 과 타당성척도에서 보상집단은 치료집단에 비해 부정적 인상 척도(NIM)점수는 유의하게 높았고, 긍정적 인상척도(PIM)점수는 유의하게 낮았다. 전체 임상척도에서 보상집단은 치료집단보다 신체적 호소(SOM), 불안(ANX), 불안관련 장애(ARD), 우울(DEP), 정신분열병(SCZ) 척도에서 유의하게 높은 점수를 보였다. 하위 임 상척도에서 보상집단은 치료집단보다 신체화(SOM-C), 정서적 불안(ANX-A), 공포증(ARD-P), 우울(DEPC, A, P), 초조성(MAN-I), 과경계(PAR-H), 사고장애 및 정신병적 경험(SCZ-T, P), 정서적 불안정 및 부정적 부정적 관계(BOR-A, N), 자극추구(ANT-S) 척도에서 유의하게 높은 점수를 보였다. 보조척도에서 보상집단이 치료집단보다 자살관념(SUI), 비지지(NON), 신체적 공격(AGG-P) 척도 점수가 유의하게 높았고, 치료거부척도(RXR) 점수는 유의하게 낮았다. 결 론 외상성 뇌손상 환자 중 보상추구 여부에 따라 PAI 상에서 타당도와 대부분의 전체 및 하위 임상척도에서 유의한 차이가 있었으며 보상집단은 증상을 더욱 과장하고 부정적으로 왜곡하는 반응을 나타냈다.

Keywords

References

  1. King PR, Donnelly KT, Donnelly JP, Dunnam MWG, Kittleson CJ, Bradshaw C B, Alt M, Meier ST. Psychometric study of the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012;49(6):879-888. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2011.03.0051
  2. Dikmen SS, Machamer JE, Powell JM, Temkin NR. Outcome 3 to 5 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:1449-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00287-9
  3. Millis SR, Rosenthal M, Novack TA, Sherer M, Nick TG, Kreutzer JS, High Jr WM, Ricker JH. Long-term neuropsychological outcome after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2001;16:343-355. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001199-200108000-00005
  4. Novack TA, Alderson AL, Bush BA, Meythaler JM, Canupp K. Cognitive and functional recovery at 6 and 12 months post-traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 2000;14:987-996. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699050050191922
  5. Novack TA, Bush BA, Meythaler JM, Canupp K. Outcome after traumatic brain injury: Pathway analysis of contributions from premorbid, injury severity, and recovery variables. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:300-305. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2001.18222
  6. Prigatano GP. Personality disturbances associated with traumatic brain injury. J Consult Clin Psychology 1992;60:360-368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.60.3.360
  7. Christine till, Bruce KC and Robin RG. Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory(PAI) in Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury. Brain Injury 2009;23(7-8):655-665. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699050902970794
  8. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO five-factor Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.;1992. p179-190.
  9. Choca JP. Interpretive guide to the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory 3rd ed. Washington: American Psychiatric Association;2004.
  10. Butcher JN, Graham JR, Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A, Dahlstrom WG, Kaemmer B. MMPI-2: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press;2001.
  11. Morey LC. Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.; 1991.
  12. Trobst KK. Personality change in traumatic brain injury. Paper presented at the 4th annual intramural scientific retreat of the National Institute on Aging, 1999 Mar.
  13. Lannoo E, de Deyne C, Colardyn F, de Soete G, Jannes C. Personality change following head injury: assessment with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. J Psychosom Res 1997;43:505-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(97)00152-9
  14. Tuokko H, Vernon-Wilkinson R, Robinson E. The use of the MCMI in the personality assessment of head-injured adults. Brain Injury 1991;5:287-293. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699059109008098
  15. Golden Z, Golden, CJ. Impact of brain injury severity on personality dysfunction. Int J Neurosci 2003;113:733-745. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450390200044
  16. Bruke JM, Smith SA, Imhoff CL. The response styles of post-acute traumatic brain-injured patients on the MMPI. Brain Injury 1989;3:35-40. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699058909008071
  17. Cullum CM, Bigler ED. Short-form MMPI findings in patients with predominately lateralized cerebral dysfunction. J Nerv Ment Dis 1988;176:332-342. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198806000-00002
  18. Leininger BE, Kreutzer JS, Hill MR. Comparison of minor and severe head injury emotional sequelae using the MMPI. Brain Injury 1991;5:199-205. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699059109008090
  19. Sand P. MMPI profile characteristics in testable brain-damaged patients within several age/diagnostic categories. Rehabil Psychol 1972;19:146-152. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0090882
  20. Wooten AJ. MMPI profiles among neuropsychological patients. J Clin Psychol 1983;39:392-406. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198305)39:3<392::AID-JCLP2270390313>3.0.CO;2-H
  21. Cattelani R, Gugliotta M, Maravita A, Mazzucchi A. Post-concussive syndrome: Paraclinical signs, subjective symptoms, cognitive functions and MMPI profiles. Brain Injury 1996;10: 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/026990596124502
  22. 김영환, 오상우, 홍상황, 박은영. PAI의 임상적 해석. 서울: 학지사;2002.
  23. Edwards DW, Dahmen BA, Wanlass RL, Holmquist LA, Wicks JJ, Davis C. Personality assesment in neuropsychology: The nonspecificity of MMPI-2 neurocorrection methods. Assessment 2003;10:222-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103254491
  24. Gass CS, Russel EW. MMPI profiles of closed head trauma patients: Impact of neurologic complaints. J Clin Psychol 1991; 47:253-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199103)47:2<253::AID-JCLP2270470210>3.0.CO;2-A
  25. Glassmire DM, Kinney DI, Greene RL, Stolberg RA, Berry DTR, Cripe L. Sensitivity and specificity of MMPI-2 neurologic correction factors: Receiver operating characteristic analysis. Assessment 2003;10:299-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103256129
  26. Kurtz JE, Shealy SE, Putnam SH. Another look at paradoxical effects in head injury with the Personality Assessment Inventory. J Pers Assess 2007;88(1):66-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890709336836
  27. Whiteside DM, Galbreath J, Bron M, Turnbull J. Differential response patterns on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in compensation -seeking and noncompensation-seeking mild traumatic brain injury patients. J Exp Neuropsychol 2012;34(2):172-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2011.630648
  28. Hopwood CJ, Morey LC, Rogers R, Sewell K. Malingering on the Personality Assessment Inventory: Identification of specific feigned disorders. J Pers Assess 2007;88(1):43-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890709336833
  29. Morey LC. Defensiveness and malingering indices for the PAI. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association;1993.
  30. Rogers R, Sewell KW, Morey LC, Ustad KL. Detection of feigned mental disorders on the Personality Assessment Inventory: A discriminant analysis. J Pers Assess 1996;67:629-640. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_15
  31. Demakis GJ, Hammond F, Knotts A, Cooper DB, Clement P, Kennedy J, Sawyer T. The Personality Assessment Inventory in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2007;22:123-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.09.004
  32. YH Kim, SH Hong. Detection of random response and impression management in the PAI: 2. Detection indices. J Korean Clin Psychol 2001;20(4):751-761.