Search

Objective: The first objective of this brief report is to examine the relationships between levels of interpersonal sensitivity and dimensions of personality, depression severity and early relationship with parents. An additional objective is to examine the differences between levels of interpersonal sensitivity in depressive subtypes.Method: One hundred and fifty four patients completed the Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure [IPSM], the Temperament and Character Inventory [TCI], and the Parental Bonding Instrument [PBI]. Other measures including Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS], DSM-IV atypical symptoms and DSM-IV melancholic symptoms were obtained using clinician rating scales.Results: There were strong Pearson correlations between both the total and subscale scores of the IPSM and both temperament and character scores of the TCI. A joint principal components analysis isolated two main underlying constructs, both consisting of IPSM and TCI subscales. Patients with rejection sensitivity, an aspect of atypical depression, scored higher on the IPSM and three of its subscales, but there were no other differences in score by subtype.Conclusions: Both the IPSM and dimensions of the TCI measure similar constructs. These two constructs may help us to understand differences in symptom profile and response to therapy in depressed patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Impaired social adjustment in depression has been associated with clinical variables, although results have been inconsistent. Previous research has not examined how social adjustment in depression varies by source of sample (clinical vs. community) or the associations with personality. Methods: A total of 260 depressed outpatients from two samples completed the Social Adjustment Scale and were assessed on a number of clinical variables including depression severity, age, duration of depression, and personality symptoms. Results: Overall social adjustment scores in our clinical samples were similar to those of an overseas clinical sample although there were some differences by subscales. In addition, the social adjustment scores of our clinical sample were significantly more impaired than those of individuals identified as depressed from a local epidemiological sample. Finally, in multiple regression equations, social adjustment scores were predicted by the clinical variables, severity of depression, younger age and personality symptoms. However, these only explained a small amount of variance in scores. Conclusion: Social adjustment in depression does not vary across different countries but varies according to the sample source (clinic vs. community). Some clinical variables are emerging as consistently associated with impaired social adjustment in depression. The associations with personality suggest this must be considered when assessing social adjustment in depressed patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]