高中生应付方式与儿童期虐待的关系

Coping styles of senior high school students in relation to childhood abuse

目的:调查高中生应付方式与儿童期受到躯体、或情感伤害以及日常照顾等方面被严重忽视即儿童期虐待的关系。方法:于2004年12月,在广东省惠州市两所普通高中,随机抽取8个班级共356名学生。采用应付方式问卷(共有100个条目,分为解决问题、自责、求助、幻想、退避、合理化6个分量表,每个分量表分值越高表示越倾向使用该应对方式)和儿童期虐待问卷自评量表(共有28个条目,分为5个分量表:①情感虐待。②躯体虐待。③性虐待。④情感忽视。⑤躯体忽视。每个条目采用5级评分:1分:从不;2分:偶尔;3分:有时;4分:经常;5分:总是。每个虐待分量表5～25分,总分25～125分)对356名高中学生进行测评。按儿童期虐待严重程度(以总分27分为界限)分为高分和低分两组,分析高中生应付方式与儿童期虐待的关系。由班主任组织进行团体测验。答完问卷后当场回收。结果:发放问卷356份,剔除不完整问卷21份,共收回回答完整问卷335份。①儿童期虐待问卷总分严重程度比较:儿童期虐待问卷各分量表分在5.5～11.95之间。情感忽视为11.95±4.15,居名分量表分之首。②不同性别分量表分的区别:男性高中生儿童期性虐待显著高于女性(5.76±1.78,5.25±0.82,P<0.05)。③不同性别高中生应付方式的比较:男性较女性更多的采用退避应付方式(0.48±0.20,0.43±0.20,P<0.05),其余项目两性之间差异不显著(P>0.05)。④儿童期虐待高分组、低分组应付方式区别:高分组自责、幻想、退避、合理化应付方式显著高于儿童期虐待低分组(0.48±0.25,0.25±0.20;0.56±0.20,0.45±0.18;0.53±0.20,0.42±0.18;0.48±0.17,0.37±0.14,P<0.05),而求助应付方式则显著低于低分组(0.52±0.30,0.65±0.23,P<0.05)。解决问题应付方式两组差异不显著(0.71±0.21,0.72±0.18,P=0.93)。结论:城市高中生经历不同程度的儿童期虐待,尤其是情感忽视。他们的应付方式与儿童期虐待明显有关,儿童期虐待严重者更多的采用不成熟的应付方式。

AIM： To investigate the relation between coping styles and childhood abuse, such as injury on body or affection, and daily care, etc. in senior high school students.METHODS： A cross-sectional survey was conducted randomly among 356 students of 8 classes of two normal senior high schools from Huizhou,Guangdong province by anonymous self-rated questionnaire during December 2004. Commnuication Satisfaction Questionnaire （CSQ） was conducted, including 100 items, and divided into 6 subscales： named solution of prohlem, self-blame, seeking-help, pipe dreams, retreat and rationalization. Which subscales scores were higher means that coping style was tendency. Data were also collected with questionnaires of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-28 item Short Form （CTQ-SF） which were divided into 5 subscales, named ①emotional abuse, ② physical abuse,③sexual abuse, ④emotional neglect and ⑤ physical neglect. Five grades were adopted in each item, 1 score as never; 2 score as occasionally; 3 score as sometimes; 4 score as often; 5 score as always. Each subscale was varied from 5 to 25 scores and the total score was in the range from 25 to 125 scores. 356 high students were tested, and divided into high scores group and low scores group according to the degree of children abuse with 27 score as a livnitation. The relation of eoping style and children abuse was analyzed. Group examine was performed and organized by a teacher in charge of a class. The questionnaires were eollected on the spot when ,accomplished.RESULTS： Totally 356 pieces of questionnaires were distributed on the spot and 335 pieces of questionnaire with integral and regular answers were collected, excluding 21 incomplete questionnaire. ① Comparison of degree of general score and subscale score in children abuse questionnaire：score of each subscale was varied from 5.5 to 11.95. The score of emotional neglect was in the top （11.95±4.15）. ② Differences of the score of different sex： children abuse was occurred in male much higher than that of female （5.76±1.78,5.25±0.82, P 〈 0.05）.③ Comparison of coping style in different sex： Retreat was often used by male （0.48±0.20,0.43±0.20,P〈 0.05）.Difference was insignificance in other items （P 〉 0.05）, ④Differences of coping style in high score group and low score group： Coping style of self-blame, pipe dreams, retreat and rationalization in high score group was higher significantly than that of low score group （0.48±0.25,0.25 ±0.20;0.56 ±0.20,0.45 ±0.18 ;0.53±0.20,0.42 ±0.18 ;0.48 ±0.17,0.37±0.14,P 〈 0.05）, Coping style of seeking-help in high score group was lower significantly than that of low score group （0.52±0.30,0.65±0.23,P 〈 0.05）. Difference was insignificance in solution of problem （0.71±0.21,0.72＋0.18 P=0.93 ）CONCLUSION： Different degree of childhood abuse occurs in urbansenior high school students, especially emotional neglect. Their coping style has significantly relation with childhood abuse. There are more immature coping styles detected in the students who had higher severity abuse.