Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry · 2022
Using an ecological momentary assessment protocol to understand problem anger in veterans.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Varker Tracey, Arjmand Hussain-Abdulah, Metcalf Olivia, Cowlishaw Sean, O'Donnell Meaghan, Forbes David, McFarlane Alexander, Bryant Richard A, Hopwood Malcolm, Phelps Andrea, Hinton Mark
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Problem anger is highly destructive, and is one of the most commonly reported issues in military and veteran populations. The goal of this study was to use ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to explore and characterize moment-to-moment experiences of problem anger in a sample of Australian veterans.
METHODS: Sixty veterans with problem anger (measured on the Dimensions of Anger Reactions Scale) completed measures of anger and anger rumination, before and after a 10-day EMA period which assessed the frequency, intensity, and expression of momentary anger experiences.
RESULTS: Findings showed that 75% of respondents indicated some level of anger during EMA monitoring. In 25% of cases, anger was reported as severe. Moreover, anger was expressed verbally in 43% of cases, and expressed physically in 27% of cases. While anger fluctuated frequently during the day, more severe anger was more likely to be reported in the late afternoon/early evening. Problem anger symptoms decreased significantly over time, from pre-EMA to post EMA (p < .001).
LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of findings is limited to a predominantly male sample, with low levels of risk of harm or violence. The study was also limited in the selection of outcome variables assessed and the lack of a control group; other momentary factors could influence experience of problem anger and provide further explanation of study results.
CONCLUSIONS: EMA is a valuable assessment tool for individuals with problem anger, and the potential for EMA as an intervention needs to be explored further.
METHODS: Sixty veterans with problem anger (measured on the Dimensions of Anger Reactions Scale) completed measures of anger and anger rumination, before and after a 10-day EMA period which assessed the frequency, intensity, and expression of momentary anger experiences.
RESULTS: Findings showed that 75% of respondents indicated some level of anger during EMA monitoring. In 25% of cases, anger was reported as severe. Moreover, anger was expressed verbally in 43% of cases, and expressed physically in 27% of cases. While anger fluctuated frequently during the day, more severe anger was more likely to be reported in the late afternoon/early evening. Problem anger symptoms decreased significantly over time, from pre-EMA to post EMA (p < .001).
LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of findings is limited to a predominantly male sample, with low levels of risk of harm or violence. The study was also limited in the selection of outcome variables assessed and the lack of a control group; other momentary factors could influence experience of problem anger and provide further explanation of study results.
CONCLUSIONS: EMA is a valuable assessment tool for individuals with problem anger, and the potential for EMA as an intervention needs to be explored further.