Search

Objective: This study examined the contributions of shame and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms to two dimensions of social problem‐solving. Method: A sample of 426 women who were seeking mental health assistance following experiences of intimate partner violence completed self‐report and clinician measures. Separate path analyses were conducted for problem orientation and problem‐solving styles. Results: In the model examining problem orientation, higher levels of shame were significantly associated with lower levels of positive problem orientation (f2 = 0.32) and higher levels of negative problem orientation (f2 = 0.92), with large effects noted. PTSD symptoms were significantly, positively associated with negative problem orientation (f2 = 0.3, large effect). When examining problem‐solving styles, shame showed a significant negative association with rational style (f2 = 0.08, small effect) and significant positive associations with impulsive style (f2 = 0.45, large effect) and avoidant style (f2 = 0.48, large effect). PTSD symptoms did not return significant associations with any of the three problem‐solving styles. Conclusion: Results indicate that shame holds notable associations with both dimensions of social problem‐solving, relative to PTSD symptoms, and are discussed in light of current models of post‐trauma functioning. Implications for clinical care and early intervention efforts are highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Substantial comorbidity exists between posttraumatic stress disorder and sleep disturbances/disorders. Such comorbidities are understudied in minority groups, including Asian Indians residing in countries outside India. Thus, we synthesized the existing literature specific to this group of Asian Indians to determine (a) prevalence estimates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sleep disturbances/disorders; and (b) PTSD-sleep comorbidity estimates. For this systematic review, we searched four databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, PTSDpubs, Web of Science) using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Of 3,796 screened articles, 9 articles (10 studies) met inclusion criteria. Study sample sizes ranged from 11 to 2,112 Asian Indians; studies were conducted in Singapore or Malaysia. No reviewed study examined PTSD. All studies examined sleep disturbances/disorders among Asian Indians; prevalence estimates were: 8.3% to 70.4% for short sleep duration, 2.0% to 22.9% for long sleep duration, 25.9% to 56.3% for poor sleep quality, 3.4% to 67.5% for insomnia diagnosis or probable insomnia, 7.7% for excessive daytime sleepiness, 3.8% to 54.6% for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis or high OSA risk, and 5.1% to 11.1% for sleep-disordered breathing. Specific to Asian Indians residing in countries outside India, this review advances PTSD-sleep literature by (a) suggesting substantial prevalence of sleep disturbances/disorders; (b) highlighting the need for culturally relevant sleep interventions; and (c) highlighting research gaps (e.g., no PTSD-focused research). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coyne and Tennen [(2010). Positive psychology in cancer care: Bad science, exaggerated claims, and unproven medicine. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 39(1), 16–26. ] argue that completing self-reports of posttraumatic growth (PTG) requires four complicated cognitive steps. We conducted two experiments designed to (1) use mental chronometry (i.e., reaction times on cognitive tasks) to test whether respondents engage in multiple cognitive steps when completing self-reports of PTG, and (2) determine whether coaching participants to take these steps results in a more valid assessment. In Experiment 1, 310 undergraduates were randomly assigned to complete either the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) or Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS), and its corresponding current version that requires only one cognitive step. In Experiment 2, 306 undergraduates were randomly assigned to complete either a guided-steps version of the SRGS or the original SRGS. Experiment 1 indicated a very small difference in completion time for the PTGI, but not the SRGS, in comparison to the current versions, suggesting respondents do not engage in the four required cognitive steps. In Experiment 2, participants reported less PTG when coached to go through the four cognitive steps, but the resulting scores were generally unrelated to measures of convergent and predictive validity. We conclude that individuals cannot accurately report PTG, even when explicitly coached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]