论文部分内容阅读
目的比较明尼苏达多项人格测验不同防卫态度被试临床量表间的差异。方法将62例经明尼苏达多项人格测验有效的结果,按F-K得分划分为“有意充坏”、“F-K指数常态”和“有意充好”组,比较3组临床量表在加校正分前后的差异和变化趋势。结果加校正分前,F、H s、P t、Sc、S i在3组之间存在统计学差异(t值在2.48~10.3之间,P<0.02),L、D、Pa在“有意充坏”组与“有意充好”组、F-K常态组之间存在统计学差异(t值在2.13~6.88之间,P<0.04),Pd在“有意充坏”组和“有意充好”组之间存在统计学差异(t=3.23,P=0.04),M a在“有意充坏”组与F-K常态组之间存在统计学差异(t=3.76,P=0.001)。加校正分后,H s、P t、Sc在“有意充好”与F-K常态组之间的统计差异消失,Pd在“有意充坏”组与“有意充好”组之间的统计差异消失。结论不同防卫态度对MM P I测验临床量表结果有影响,加校正分后,可以消除“有意充好”对临床量表的影响,但不能消除“有意充坏”对临床量表的影响。
Objective To compare Minnesota multiple personality tests of different defensive attitudes of subjects were different between the clinical scales. Methods 62 validated Minnesota personality tests were divided into three groups according to FK score: “intentional defeat”, “FK index normal” and “ Difference and trend of change before and after plus correction. There were significant differences between the three groups (t = 2.48 ~ 10.3, P <0.02), while L, D, Pa were statistically significant (P < There was a statistically significant difference between the normal group and the FK normal group (t = 2.13-6.88, P <0.04), and Pd was significantly higher in the group of ”intentional defeat“ There was a statistically significant difference (t = 3.23, P = 0.04) between the ”intentionally defeated“ group and the ”FK“ group (t = 3.23, P = 0.04) , P = 0.001). After adding the correction points, the statistical differences between Hs, Pt, Sc in the ”intentional good“ and the FK normal group disappeared, Pd in the ”intentional damage“ group and ”intentional good“ group The statistical differences between disappear. Conclusion Different defensive attitudes have impact on the results of MM PI test, and the addition of corrections can eliminate the influence of ”intentionally good“ on the clinical scale, but can not eliminate the ”intentional prejudice" Impact.