心理学英文文献报告
心理调研报告模板英语(3篇)
第1篇Executive Summary:This report presents the findings of a psychological survey conducted to explore the [subject] among [target population]. The survey aimed to understand the mental health status, coping strategies, and overallwell-being of the participants. The methodology, data analysis, and key findings are discussed below.Introduction:[Provide a brief background on the subject of the survey. Explain the relevance of the topic and the objectives of the study.]1. Methodology1.1 PurposeThe purpose of this survey was to [state the main objective of the survey].1.2 DesignThis survey was designed as a [describe the type of survey, e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal, etc.] study.1.3 ParticipantsThe participants were [describe the characteristics of the participants, e.g., age, gender, occupation, etc.]. A total of [number] participants were included in the study.1.4 InstrumentsThe survey used a [describe the type of survey instrument, e.g., questionnaire, interview, etc.] that included [list the specific questions or sections of the survey].1.5 ProcedureThe survey was conducted [describe the procedure, e.g., online, in-person, etc.]. Participants were informed about the purpose of the survey and assured of the confidentiality of their responses.1.6 Data CollectionData were collected from [describe the data collection period] and were entered into [mention the software or method used for data entry].2. Data Analysis2.1 Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic information and responses to the survey questions.2.2 Inferential StatisticsInferential statistics were employed to determine if there were significant differences in the responses based on various demographic factors.3. Key Findings3.1 Mental Health Status[Present the findings on the mental health status of the participants, including any notable trends or patterns.]3.2 Coping Strategies[Discuss the coping strategies used by the participants to deal with challenges and stressors.]3.3 Overall Well-being[Present the findings on the overall well-being of the participants, including any correlations with mental health status and coping strategies.]4. Discussion4.1 Implications of FindingsThe findings of this survey have several implications for [mention the implications, e.g., policy, practice, research, etc.].4.2 LimitationsThis study has several limitations, including [list the limitations,e.g., sample size, generalizability, etc.].4.3 Future ResearchFurther research is needed to [mention potential areas for future research, e.g., exploring specific coping strategies, examining long-term effects, etc.].5. ConclusionIn conclusion, this survey has provided valuable insights into the psychological aspects of [subject]. The findings highlight the importance of [mention the key findings]. Future research and interventions should focus on [mention recommendations based on the findings].References:[Provide a list of all the references cited in the report, formatted according to the relevant citation style.]Appendix:[Include any additional materials, such as copies of the survey instrument, demographic data, or any other relevant information.]Note: The above template is a general outline for a psychological survey report. The specific content and structure may vary depending on the subject, target population, and research objectives.第2篇Executive Summary:This report presents the findings of a psychological survey conducted to explore [briefly describe the purpose of the survey]. The survey aimedto understand the attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions of [target population] in relation to [specific issue or phenomenon]. The report includes an overview of the methodology used, the data collected, and the analysis conducted. The findings are discussed in detail, followed by conclusions and recommendations.1. Introduction1.1 BackgroundProvide a brief background on the topic of the survey. Explain the relevance and importance of the issue being studied.1.2 Purpose of the SurveyState the specific objectives of the survey. Explain what you hope to learn from the data collected.1.3 Research QuestionsList the key research questions that guided the survey.2. Methodology2.1 Study DesignDescribe the type of study design used (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal, case study).2.2 ParticipantsProvide information on the sample size, demographics, andcharacteristics of the participants.2.3 InstrumentsDescribe the instruments used to collect data, including questionnaires, interviews, or observations.2.4 Data Collection ProceduresExplain the procedures followed for data collection, including the time frame and setting.2.5 Data AnalysisOutline the statistical methods used for analyzing the data.3. Results3.1 Descriptive StatisticsPresent the basic descriptive statistics such as means, percentages, and standard deviations for the variables of interest.3.2 Correlation AnalysisIf applicable, present the results of correlation analyses between variables.3.3 Regression AnalysisIf applicable, present the results of regression analyses to identify significant predictors of the dependent variable.3.4 Content AnalysisIf applicable, present the results of content analysis on qualitative data.4. Discussion4.1 Interpretation of ResultsDiscuss the implications of the findings in relation to the research questions and objectives.4.2 Comparison with Previous ResearchCompare the findings with those of previous studies on the same or related topics.4.3 LimitationsAcknowledge any limitations of the study, such as sample size, generalizability, or potential biases.5. ConclusionSummarize the main findings of the survey. Restate the significance of the results in the context of the research question.6. RecommendationsBased on the findings, provide recommendations for future research, policy, or practice.7. ReferencesList all the references cited in the report in alphabetical order.AppendixInclude any additional information that may be relevant to understanding the survey and its findings. This may include copies of the questionnaire, interview guides, or detailed data tables.---[Please note that the above template is a general outline for a psychological survey report in English. The content within each section should be tailored to the specific details of the survey conducted.]第3篇Title:A Study on [Topic/Issue] among [Target Population]Abstract:This report presents the findings of a psychological research study conducted to explore [briefly state the research objective]. The study employed [describe the research methodology], targeting [describe the target population]. The findings are discussed in detail, followed by a conclusion and recommendations for further research.1. Introduction1.1 Background[Provide a brief background of the topic, including its relevance and significance.]1.2 Research Objectives[State the specific objectives of the research study.]1.3 Research Questions[Outline the specific research questions that guided the study.]1.4 Hypotheses[State the null and alternative hypotheses, if applicable.]2. Methodology2.1 Participants[Describe the characteristics of the participants, including the number, age range, and selection criteria.]2.2 Instruments[Describe the instruments used for data collection, such as questionnaires, interviews, or psychological tests.]2.3 Procedure[Provide a detailed description of the research procedure, including how participants were recruited, the data collection process, and the data analysis methods.]2.4 Ethical Considerations[Discuss any ethical considerations that were taken into account during the study.]3. Results3.1 Descriptive Statistics[Present the descriptive statistics for the data, such as mean, median, mode, and standard deviation.]3.2 Analytical Results[Present the results of the statistical analyses conducted, such as t-tests, ANOVA, or regression analysis.]3.3 Correlation Analysis[If applicable, present the results of correlation analysis between variables.]3.4 Qualitative Results[If applicable, present the results of qualitative data analysis, such as thematic analysis or content analysis.]4. Discussion4.1 Interpretation of Results[Discuss the interpretation of the results in relation to the research objectives and hypotheses.]4.2 Comparison with Previous Research[Compare the findings with those of previous studies on the same or related topics.]4.3 Limitations of the Study[Identify and discuss the limitations of the study, such as sample size, generalizability, and methodological issues.]4.4 Implications for Practice[Discuss the implications of the findings for practice, policy, orfuture research.]5. Conclusion5.1 Summary of Findings[Summarize the key findings of the study.]5.2 Implications for Future Research[Suggest areas for future research that could build upon the current study.]6. References[Provide a list of all the references cited in the report, formatted according to the relevant citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).]Appendices[Include any additional materials that support the research, such as questionnaires, interview transcripts, or detailed statistical analyses.]---Note: The above template is a general structure for a psychological research report. The specific content and sections may vary depending on the nature of the research and the requirements of the academic institution or journal.。
关于心理学的英语作文
关于心理学的英语作文Title: About Psychology。
Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes. It is a multifaceted discipline that encompasses various fields such as clinical, social, developmental, cognitive, and experimental psychology. Psychology seeks to understand how people think, feel, and behave, and how these processes are influenced by biological, social, and cultural factors.One of the key areas of psychology is clinical psychology, which focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Clinical psychologists work with individuals who are struggling with a range of issues such as anxiety, depression, addiction, and trauma. They use various therapeutic techniques such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, psychodynamic therapy, and mindfulness-based therapy to help individuals overcome their challenges and improve their mental health.Another important field of psychology is social psychology, which examines how people interact with each other and how social influences shape behavior. Social psychologists study topics such as conformity, obedience, prejudice, and group dynamics. They seek to understand how social norms and expectations influence our thoughts, feelings, and actions, and how we can use this knowledge to promote positive social change.Developmental psychology is concerned with how people change and develop over time, from infancy to old age. Developmental psychologists study topics such as language acquisition, cognitive development, and socialization. They seek to understand how biological, environmental, and cultural factors interact to shape our development and shape who we become.Cognitive psychology is focused on understanding mental processes such as perception, attention, memory, and reasoning. Cognitive psychologists study how the brain processes information and how we use this information tomake decisions, solve problems, and interact with the world around us. They use various methods such as experiments, computer simulations, and brain imaging to understand the workings of the mind.Experimental psychology is concerned with thescientific study of behavior and mental processes. Experimental psychologists conduct research to testtheories and hypotheses about human behavior and cognition. They use a variety of research methods such as experiments, surveys, and observations to collect data and analyze it to draw conclusions.In conclusion, psychology is a diverse and fascinating field that seeks to understand the complexities of human behavior and mental processes. It has applications in awide range of areas such as healthcare, education, business, and social policy. By studying psychology, we can gain insights into our own behavior and the behavior of others, and use this knowledge to improve our lives and the world around us.。
心理学英文文献汇报
Preface
Two major views about the processing and perceiving of facial expressions:
➢ Discrete category view: basic facial expressions convey discrete and specific emotions; the readout of specific emotions from facial expressions is largely unaffected by their context.
➢ Dimensional view: facial expressions are not categorized directly into specific emotion categories, but rather convey values on the dimensions of valence and arousal. These values are read out from the facial expressions and are used to attribute a specific emotion to the face; the initial reading out of affective dimensions from the facial expressions is assumed to be unaffected by context.
Preface
Goal of this study
To address the perceptual similarity among facial expressions and unveil rules that govern contextual effects on the perceptual processing of facial expressions and on the mapping of facial expressions into emotion categories.
大学生心理健康问题外文文献最新译文
大学生心理健康问题外文文献最新译文XXX。
as evidenced by the high-profile cases of XXX students at Virginia Tech and Northern XXX。
these incidents are not representative of the broader public health XXX students as they are among same-aged non-students。
and the number and XXX。
they are not XXX illness.One of the major XXX。
lack of knowledge about available resources。
and XXX must work to ce these barriers XXX and support for mental health.XXX students is the lack of resources available on XXX form of counseling or mental health services。
these resources are often overburdened and underfunded。
This can lead to long wait times for appointments and limited access to specialized care。
To address this issue。
colleges and XXX and services.It is also XXX college students。
such as those from XXX or those with pre-existing mental health ns。
积极心理学英文综述范文
积极心理学英文综述范文Title: A Comprehensive Review of Positive Psychology.Positive psychology, a branch of psychology that focuses on the study and promotion of positive emotions, strengths, virtues, and well-being, has emerged as a significant field of research in recent decades. Developed by Martin Seligman and his colleagues in the late 1990s, positive psychology aims to shift the focus of psychology from pathology and deficit-based approaches to the study of human strengths, talents, and positive emotions. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of positive psychology, its key concepts, applications, and future directions.Origins and Definition.Positive psychology has its roots in the humanistic tradition of psychology, which emphasizes the importance of human potential and growth. It is distinct from traditionalpsychology, which has often been focused on studying and treating mental illness and pathology. Positive psychology instead focuses on the positive aspects of human life, including emotions, traits, and institutions that promote well-being and flourishing.The core principles of positive psychology are centered around three key areas: positive emotions, engagement with life, and positive relationships. Positive emotions refer to feelings of happiness, joy, contentment, and other positive affective states. Engagement with life involves being fully present and immersed in activities that are personally meaningful and fulfilling. Positiverelationships refer to the quality and nature of our social connections with others, including family, friends, and community.Applications and Interventions.Positive psychology has a wide range of applications and interventions that aim to promote positive outcomes and enhance well-being. One of the most well-knowninterventions in positive psychology is the practice of gratitude, which involves intentionally focusing on and appreciating the good things in life. Gratitude has been shown to improve emotional well-being,增强人际关系, and enhance overall life satisfaction.Other interventions include mindfulness practices, such as meditation and yoga, which promote awareness and engagement with the present moment. Mindfulness has been found to reduce stress and anxiety, enhance emotional regulation, and improve cognitive performance. Other positive psychology interventions focus on building social connections, fostering positive relationships, and developing character strengths.Future Directions.Positive psychology is a rapidly growing field, and there are many exciting directions for future research and application. One area of particular interest is the development of positive interventions for specific populations, such as adolescents, older adults, andindividuals with mental health conditions. By tailoring interventions to meet the unique needs of these populations, positive psychology has the potential to make significant contributions to improving their well-being and quality of life.Another important direction for future research is the exploration of the neurobiological mechanisms that underlie positive emotions and well-being. By understanding how positive psychology interventions work at theneurobiological level, we can gain a deeper understandingof their effectiveness and develop more targeted andprecise interventions.Conclusion.Positive psychology has emerged as a critical field of research and practice that focuses on the positive aspectsof human life. By studying and promoting positive emotions, strengths, virtues, and well-being, positive psychology has the potential to transform individuals, communities, and society for the better. Future research and applications inpositive psychology will continue to expand our understanding of human potential and growth and lead to more effective interventions that promote positive outcomes and enhance well-being.。
心理学英文文献翻译：The Role of Autobiographical Memory Networks in the Experience
自传体记忆系统在消极情绪体验中：如何从过去的记忆中得出目前的感受The Role of Autobiographical Memory Networks in the Experience of Negative Emotions: How Our Remembered Past Elicits Our Current FeelingsFrederick L. Philippe and Richard Koestner McGill University Serge Lecours, Genevieve Beaulieu-Pelletier,and Katy Bois Universite´ de Montre´al摘要本研究考察了在消极情绪体验中，自传体记忆网络所起到的作用。
两个实验结果发现，自传体记忆及其相关的记忆系统在消极情绪体验中的作用是活跃而明显的。
此外，与自我决定理论一致，对能力、自主及人际关系的心理需要的受挫，是自传体记忆影响消极情绪体验的关键环节。
研究一揭示，在与损失主题相关的自传体记忆系统中，心理需要的受挫与抑郁情绪正相关，而非其他的消极情绪。
研究二以一个预测设计揭示，相对于对待不公的情绪，愤怒相关及内疚相关的自传体记忆网络二者在情景愤怒上的差别更为显著。
所有的结果都是在控制神经质（研究一、二）和自我控制（研究二）及效价（研究一）和情绪（研究二）的基础之上，通过测量自传体记忆网络而得出的。
这些结果呈现了需要受挫在自传体记忆网络中持续的具有情感意义的表达。
关键词自传体记忆，消极情绪，需要受挫，记忆网络，自我决定理论尽管记忆与情绪的关系很久以来为研究者所兴趣的论题,但众多研究者主要关心的是——情绪怎样影响情绪。
例如，上世纪80年代到90年代间的研究考察了个体当前的情绪如何影响了情绪一致性记忆（如，Bower & Cohen, 1982; Clore & Parrott, 1991），或者情绪记忆的效果优于中性记忆的方式（Heuer & Reisberg,1990）。
英文心理学文献
ORIGINAL PAPERDevelopmental trajectories of child to adolescent externalizing behavior and adult DSM-IV disorder:results of a 24-year longitudinal studyJoni Reef •Sofia Diamantopoulou •Inge van Meurs •Frank C.Verhulst •Jan van der EndeReceived:1November 2009/Accepted:22September 2010/Published online:10October 2010ÓThe Author(s)2010.This article is published with open access at AbstractObjective Childhood externalizing behavior is found to be relatively persistent.Developmental pathways within types of externalizing behavior have been recognized from childhood to adolescence.We aimed to describe the pre-diction of adult DSM-IV disorders from developmental trajectories of externalizing behavior over a period of 24years on a longitudinal multiple birth cohort study of 2,076children.This has not been examined yet.Methods Trajectories of the four externalizing behavior types aggression,opposition,property violations,and sta-tus violations were determined separately through latent class growth analysis (LCGA)using data of five waves,covering ages 4–18years.Psychiatric disorders of 1,399adults were assessed with the CIDI.We used regression analyses to determine the associations between children’s trajectories and adults’psychiatric disorders.Results All externalizing behavior types showed signifi-cant associations with disruptive disorder in adulthood.In all antisocial behavior types high-level trajectories showed the highest probability for predicting adult disorders.Par-ticularly the status violations cluster predicted many dis-orders in adulthood.The trajectories most often predicted disruptive disorders in adulthood,but predicted also anxi-ety,mood,and substance use disorders.Conclusions We can conclude that an elevated level of externalizing behavior in childhood has impact on the long-term outcome,regardless of the developmental course of externalizing behavior.Furthermore,different types ofexternalizing behavior (i.e.,aggression,opposition,prop-erty violations,and status violations)were related to dif-ferent adult outcomes,and children and adolescents with externalizing behavior of the status violations subtype were most likely to be affected in adulthood.Keywords Externalizing behavior ÁDSM-IV ÁDevelopmental pathwaysIntroductionIt is well established in the literature that externalizing behavior in childhood and adolescence is associated with a wide range of poor concurrent and longitudinal outcomes [1].Regarding longitudinal outcomes,studies report that children and adolescents with externalizing behavior problems are at risk for a wide range of disorders in adulthood that include:disruptive behavior [2–7],mood and anxiety problems [8–11],and substance use and abuse [5,9,12].However,because externalizing behavior is an umbrella concept encompassing several different kinds of behavior,Frick et al.[13]performed a meta-analysis of 44published studies and empirically divided externalizing behavior into four types:aggression (e.g.,fights,bullies),oppositionality (e.g.,temper,stubborn),property violations (e.g.,lies,cruel to animals),and status violations (e.g.,substance use,run-away).To our knowledge,only two studies have examined the adult outcome of types of externalizing behavior prob-lems as suggested by Frick and colleagues [13].These studies underline the need to distinguish between types of externalizing behavior,that is,they report that status viola-tions predict substance use and social impairment,that op-positionality only predicts social impairment,whereasJ.Reef ÁS.Diamantopoulou ÁI.van Meurs ÁF.C.Verhulst ÁJ.van der Ende (&)Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,Erasmus Medical Center -Sophia Children’s Hospital,P.O.Box 3060,3000CB Rotterdam,The Netherlands e-mail:jan.vanderende@erasmusmc.nlSoc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol (2011)46:1233–1241DOI 10.1007/s00127-010-0297-9property violations and aggression predict both substance use and risky sexual behavior[15,16].Regarding development of externalizing behavior,pre-vious studies have provided evidence for variation in developmental trajectories of externalizing behavior in childhood and adolescence with most studies identifying four to six distinctive trajectories[17–19].Developmental trajectories describe changes in both the level and the growth or decline of behaviors over time[20].It is important to know which change in level and growth across age may be considered normative for children and ado-lescents.Because from both theoretical and clinical per-spective,it is indispensable to understand normal development for defining abnormal behavior at any age point.In the previous study that examined the development of the four externalizing behavior types suggested by Frick et al.[13]from early childhood up to young adulthood(i.e., from age4to age18)the following developmental tra-jectories were identified:three trajectories for aggression ranging from very low to high,six trajectories for oppo-sitionality ranging from very low to high and including a trajectory where oppositionality increased in adolescence, and four trajectories for property and status violation ranging from low to high[21].Considering these different developmental trajectories of externalizing behavior that groups of children follow,it is important to examine groups of children that follow developmental trajectories that vary in level and shape,because an average developmental trajectory that describes expected development for most children may be considered insufficient.In the current study,we determined distinctive groups of individuals who are more likely to follow one developmental trajectory than another,within each type of externalizing behavior.In the study by Bongers et al.[21],status violations was the only externalizing behavior type that increased with age, whereas the remaining types primarily showed a persisting or decreasing course.In a more recent study by Bongers et al.[15],in which the relation of both level and growth of externalizing problems,as suggested by Frick et al.[13],to adult outcomes was examined,primarily the level of the trajectories was found to be predictive.Children with high-level trajectories of opposition and status violations reported more impaired social functioning,regardless of the direction, or growth,or decline of these high-level trajectories.How-ever,in the study by Timmermans et al.[16]both the level and growth of opposition,aggression,and property viola-tions were related to poor adolescent outcomes such as risky sexual behavior and substance use.In this latter study only the level of status violations predicted later negative out-comes.Hence,findings are inconclusive as to how devel-opmental trajectories of these externalizing behavior types are related to other long-term outcomes,and further research on this issue is needed.In this study,we aimed to investigate associations between childhood externalizing behavior and adult psy-chopathology.We examined the prediction of adult DSM-IV disorders from developmental trajectories of the four types of externalizing behavior suggested by Frick et al.[13](i.e.,opposition,aggression,property violations,and status violations)over a period of24years in a longitudi-nal,multiple birth cohort study of2,076children from the general population.Because studies have reported prog-nostic differences between the four types of childhood externalizing behavior as suggested by Frick et al.[13],we investigated the linkage between childhood externalizing behavior and adult psychopathology,distinguishing these types of externalizing behavior.In addition,although pre-vious studies reported outcomes for the four externalizing behavior types up to young adulthood(i.e.,age18in the study by Timmermans et al.[16];up to age30in the study by Bongers et al.[15]),knowledge about their outcome beyond young adulthood is lacking.Therefore,we aimed to extend thefindings of Bongers et al.[15],which are based on a previous wave of the current study,by examining the prediction of developmental trajectories in middle adult-hood(i.e.,from age28to40years).Based on earlierfindings,we expect that an elevated level of externalizing behavior in childhood has impact on the long-term outcome,in addition to the developmental course of externalizing behavior[5,8,11,15,22,23]. Furthermore,we expect that different types of externalizing behavior(i.e.,aggression,opposition,property violations, and status violations)are related to different adult out-comes[15,16].Finally,according to the fact that the oppositional and status violations type consist of more reactive and nondestructive behaviors,these types of problems are expected to develop into emotional problems. Because the property violations and aggression type consist of proactive,destructive behaviors,these types are expec-ted to develop into behavior problems in adulthood [24,25].Because behavior problems of the status violations type have been found to increase with age[21],we expect that this type is associated with most adult problems. MethodsSampleIn1983,a sample of2,600children aged4–16years was randomly selected from the general population of the Dutch province of Zuid-Holland.A hundred children of each gender and age were drawn from the municipal reg-isters listing all residents in the province A total of2,447 parents of child participants could be reached,of whom 2,076(84.8%)completed the Child Behavior Checklist(CBCL)on their child.Parents were interviewed at 2-year intervals until 1991and the participants themselves were interviewed in 2006and 2007when they were 28–40years old.We approached all participants from the original sample,except 23who had died,10who were intellectu-ally disabled,and 48who had requested to be removed from the sample at an earlier stage of the study [26].We reached 1,791of the 1,995participants,452refused and 1,339respondents provided information for determining DSM-IV diagnoses,see Fig.1.The response rate in the seventh data collection was 66%(1,339of 2,043).To investigate selective attrition,we performed logistic regression analyses to look at associations between age,gender,socio-economic status (SES),and Total Problems Score of participants in 1983,and participation in 2006and 2007.SES was scored on a six-step scale of parental occupation [27]with 1=lowest SES.Total Problems Score was calculated by summing 118of the specific item scores on emotional and behavioral problems in the CBCL.Although age,gender,and SES had significant influence on participation at follow-up,the differences were small.Participation was more likely when participants were women (51.1%for dropouts versus 53.7%for participants;OR =1.33;CI 1.11–1.60;p \0.002),if they were younger (mean age at baseline was 10.2years for dropouts and 9.8years for participants;OR =0.97;CI 0.95–1.00;p \0.026),and had a higher SES (3.4for dropouts and 3.7for participants;OR =1.12;CI 1.06–1.19;p \0.000).No influence on participation was found for Total Problems Score.MeasurementsExternalizing behavior trajectoriesFrom 1983to 1991the CBCL was used to obtain stan-dardized parent reports of children’s problem behaviors.Externalizing behavior trajectories were based on assess-ment with the CBCL.The CBCL is a rating scale intended for completion by parents of 4–18-year-old children;it contains 120items covering behavioral or emotional problems that have occurred during the past 6months.The items are scored on a three-point scale:0(not true ),1(somewhat or sometimes true ),and 2(very true or oftentrue ).The reliability and validity of the CBCL [28]have been confirmed for the Dutch version [29].We selected 21externalizing behavior items of the CBCL,corresponding to items that Frick et al.[13]used for the classification of antisocial behavior into four types which are:aggression,opposition,property violations,and status violations (Table 1).The structure of the four types was confirmed with confirmatory factor analyses.The average goodness-of-fit index (GFI)across time 1–time 5was 0.92for males and 0.96for females [21].Trajectories of externalizing behavior for ages 4–18years were identified in a previous study on the Zuid-Holland data (see Fig.2)[21].A semi-parametric,group-based approach [20]was used to determine developmental trajectories of the four externalizing behavior types.The trajectories were based on the first five waves of this study.Table 1Item description of the four externalizing behavior types Frick cluster Child behavior checklist itemAggressionCruelty,bullying,or meanness to others Gets in many fights Physically attacks people Threatens peopleOppositionArgues a lot Disobedient at home Disobedient at school Stubborn,sullen,or irritable Sulks a lot Teases a lotTemper tantrums or hot temperProperty violations Cruel to animalsLying or cheating Sets fires Steals at home Steals outside the home VandalismStatus violationsRuns away from home Swearing or obscene language Truancy,skips schoolUses alcohol or drugs for not medical purposesCBCL items to which the content showed a good match to the description provided by the authors of the types [13]that were clustered to form four types of externalizing behaviorFor every child,a trajectory was determined within each externalizing behavior type.Within the behavior types,the best possible number of groups with different develop-mental trajectories was estimated and selected using the Bayesian information criterion [20].We used a Zero-Inflated Poisson (ZIP)distribution for estimating the trajectories.Estimation using a ZIP distribution addresses both non-normality and the abundance of zeros typically found in distributions of externalizing behavior [20,21].The largest probability for each individual indicated the trajectory that best matched to that individual’s behavior over time.With these probabilities,each child was assigned to the trajectory of each externalizing type that best described their individual developmental trajectory.Therefore,each child could be classified at the same time in,for example,a high-level trajectory for opposition and a low-level trajectory for aggression.There were equal amounts of younger and older children classified in each trajectory,since there were no age effects in the assignment of the individuals to the trajectories.The child’s trajectory group classifications were used in further analyses.Three trajectories were found for the externalizing behavior type aggression:a ‘near zero’trajectory,a ‘low decreasers’trajectory,and a ‘high decreasers’trajectory.Six trajectories were found for the behavior type opposition:a ‘near zero’trajectory,a ‘low decreasers’trajectory,a ‘medium decreasers’trajectory,an ‘adolescent increasers’trajectory,a ‘high persisters’trajectory,and a ‘high decrea-sers’trajectory.Four trajectories were found for property violations:a ‘near zero’trajectory,a ‘low decreasers’trajectory,a ‘high persisters’trajectory,and an ‘extremely high persisters’trajectory.Because the ‘extremely high persisters’group of property violations consisted of only two participants,this group was combined with the ‘high persisters’group.In status violations,a ‘near zero’trajec-tory,an ‘adolescent decreasers’trajectory,a ‘medium increasers’trajectory,and a ‘high increasers’trajectory was found.The number of individuals within each trajectory can be found in Table 2.The items of the CBCL can be scored on two general scales:internalizing behavior (i.e.,anxiety and depression)and externalizing behavior (i.e.,delinquent andaggressiveFig.2Developmental trajectories in childhood antisocial behavior types.Group-based developmental trajectories of aggression,oppo-sition,property violations,and status violations.The y axis representsthe raw syndrome scores.(From Bongers et al.[21];reprinted with permission of Blackwell Publishing.)Ado adolescencebehavior).In this study,we used internalizing and exter-nalizing scores measured at time1in1983.To investigate selective attrition,all dropouts and par-ticipants were compared with respect to their1983scale scores,using analysis of variance(ANOVA)and adjusting for age and gender.No significant difference was found between participants with missing assessments and partic-ipants with assessments in allfive waves,on any of the CBCL scales(see Bongers et al.[21]for further details about the analysis).Composite International Diagnostic InterviewThe computerized version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview(CIDI;[30]and three sections of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule(DIS)for DSM-IV diagnoses [31]were used to obtain diagnoses of mental disorder in the 12months prior to the interview(past year diagnoses).The CIDI and DIS are fully structured interviews to allow administration by lay interviewers and scoring of DSM-IV [32]by computer.Good reliability and validity have been reported for the CIDI[33].Because information concerning disruptive disorders in adulthood(oppositional defiant, antisocial personality disorder,and ADHD)was lacking in this version of the CIDI,sections of the DIS covering these disorders were administered.Because the cell sizes for specific disorders were small for the majority of diagnoses, we constructed the following groupings of DSM-IV cate-gories:(1)anxiety disorders,consisting of generalized anx-iety disorder,obsessive–compulsive disorder,panic disorder,agoraphobia,social phobia,specific phobia,or any anxiety disorder;(2)mood disorders,consisting of major depressive episode,bipolar disorder,dysthymia,or any mood disorder;(3)substance abuse/dependence,consisting of alcohol abuse/dependence,drug abuse/dependence,or both;(4)disruptive disorders,consisting of oppositional defiant disorder,antisocial personality disorder,ADHD, attention deficit only,hyperactivity only,or any disruptive disorder;and(5)any disorder,consisting of any of the above disorders or other disorders such as bulimia nervosa,soma-tization,conversion,pain disorder,hypochondriasis,and brief psychotic disorder.Statistical analysesLogistic regression analysesTo investigate associations between childhood externaliz-ing developmental trajectories in childhood and psycho-pathology in adulthood,we performed multiple logistic regression analyses for each externalizing behavior type separately.We tested whether associations existed between the trajectories in the four externalizing behavior types and DSM-IV disorders at follow-up.The regression analyses included gender,age,and SES at follow-up as covariates. Because the associations between the trajectories of externalizing behavior and adult disorders might be con-founded by associations with internalizing and externaliz-ing behavior,we added two more covariates.We added internalizing and externalizing scores assessed with the CBCL at time1to the regression analyses to adjust for their effects on the associations.In this way,we determined whether the trajectories predicted adult psychiatric disor-ders over and above comorbid general internalizing and externalizing behavior.For all models,wefirst determined whether there were interaction effects of sex or age with the separate trajectories.No significant interaction effects were found.The‘near zero’trajectory of each type was used as reference group in each regression analysis. ResultsIn the multiple regression analyses,many associations were found between childhood externalizing developmental trajectories and adult disorders(Table3).All four exter-nalizing types predicted later disruptive disorders.BesidesTable2Number of participants in the developmental trajectoriesDevelopmental trajectory N Percentage oftotal sample Percentage malesAggressionNear zero1,47371.041.7 Medium decreasers44421.465.3High decreasers1597.770.4 OppositionNear zero1487.143.9Low decreasers49123.744.6 Medium decreasers67432.550.3 Adolescence increasers125 6.041.6High decreasers50324.253.5High persisters135 6.553.3 Property violationsNear zero1,54874.645.4Low decreasers42120.356.3High persisters107 5.271.0 Status violationsNear zero1,05250.743.7 Adolescence increasers48523.446.8 Medium increasers51424.860.5High increasers25 1.272.0 Number of individuals within each trajectory,percentage of indi-viduals within each trajectory of the total sample,and percentage of males within each trajectory of the total sampledisruptive disorders,the oppositional type was also asso-ciated with anxiety disorders in adulthood.The trajectories in the status violations type also predicted substance abuse/ dependence,anxiety,and mood disorder.Primarily high-level trajectories in the types predicted problems,but also medium-level trajectories were highly predictive.DiscussionThis study examined the relations between childhood tra-jectories of four distinctive types of externalizing behavior and DSM-IV disorders in adulthood in a longitudinal general-population sample that included males and femalesTable3Associations between developmental trajectories of child externalizing problems and disorders in adulthood Predictors N DSM-IV disorders at follow-upAny disorder N=356OR(95%CI)Disruptive disorderN=121OR(95%CI)Substance abuse/dependence N=120OR(95%CI)Anxiety disorderN=183OR(95%CI)Mood disorderN=36OR(95%CI)AggressionHigh decreasers82 2.4(2.1–5.1)Low decreasers275Near zero982Sex(male) 3.3(2.1–5.1) 2.9(1.9–4.5)0.4(0.3–0.6)0.3(0.2–0.8) SES0.9(0.8–1.0)General externalizingGeneral internalizingOppositionalHigh persisters73 3.1(1.3–7.5) 4.6(1.2–17.7) 3.1(1.1–9.6)High decreasers315 2.3(1.2–4.3)Ado increasers89Medium decreasers426Low decreasers334Near zero102Sex(male) 3.7(2.4–5.7) 3.0(1.9–4.5)0.4(0.3–0.6)0.3(0.1–0.7) SES0.9(0.8–1.0)General externalizingGeneral internalizingProperty violationsHigh persisters55 2.3(1.3–4.3) 3.8(1.8–8.2)Low decreasers276 1.3(1.0–1.8) 1.6(1.0–2.6)Near zero1,008Sex(male) 3.3(2.2–5.1) 2.8(1.9–4.3)0.4(0.3–0.6)0.3(0.1–0.7) SESGeneral externalizingGeneral internalizingStatus violationsHigh increasers15 3.8(1.3–11.1)11.7(3.4–40.2)7.1(1.1–47.1) Medium increasers309 1.9(1.4–2.6) 1.7(1.1–2.8) 2.3(1.4–3.8) 1.6(1.1–2.5)Ado increasers320 2.8(1.1–7.1) Near zero695Sex(male) 3.3(2.2–5.1) 2.7(1.8–4.2)0.4(0.3–0.6)0.3(0.1–0.7) SESGeneral externalizingGeneral internalizingOdds ratios(95%confidence interval)are derived from multiple logistic regression analysis.Near zero groups were reference groups in the regression analyses.Only significant results are presentedAdo adolescenceaged4–16years assessed at six time periods.All four types of externalizing behavior(i.e.,aggression,opposition, property violations,and status violations)in childhood, showed associations with disruptive behavior in adulthood. Children displaying externalizing behavior of the opposi-tional type(e.g.,arguing,disobedience,temper tantrums) also showed anxiety disorder in adulthood.Children in trajectories of the status violation type(e.g.,runaway, truancy,drug,and alcohol use)showed primarily substance use,anxiety,and mood disorder in adulthood.Furthermore, we found that children who are in high-level externalizing behavior trajectories are most at risk to suffer from disor-ders in adulthood,that is,both internalizing and external-izing disorders.This24-year follow-up study is unique in prospectively examining the adult outcomes of different developmental trajectories in four childhood types of externalizing behavior,in a large general-population sam-ple of1,399children.Consistent with results of previous longitudinal studies in the general population that investigated the long-term continuity of early externalizing behavior[5,14,34],we can conclude that children with externalizing behavior are at increased risk for adverse outcomes in adulthood. Moreover,even after24years,children in all subtypes of externalizing behavior are at increased risk to suffer from internalizing and externalizing adult disorders.In addition, our study emphasizes the need to distinguish between the subtypes of externalizing behavior because we found dif-ferences between the predictive values of the different types of externalizing behavior.Of the four types of externalizing behavior,aggression(mainly including physical aggression)showed the least associations with adult psychopathology,whereas opposition and property violations mainly predicted adult disruptive disorder.The status violations subtype was the weakest predictor for later disruptive behavior.However,children with behavior problems of this type showed substance use, anxiety,and mood disorder in adulthood.In a study that investigated which subtypes of externalizing behavior accounted for substance use[16],it was also found that status violations predicts substance use in late adolescence. In our study,we found that even up to middle adulthood, strong associations were found between status violations and substance use.Studies that investigated the comor-bidity between alcohol,drugs,and internalizing disorders reported that‘self medication’with alcohol or drugs was associated with an increased likelihood of anxiety disorders [35,36].This verifies ourfinding of anxiety and substance use disorder in adulthood being related to status violations. Furthermore,another possible explanation for ourfinding of associations between childhood externalizing behavior types and adult internalizing disorders could be that the status violations and oppositional type comprise behaviors that are more reactive,nondestructive,and affective behaviors,and entail negative emotionality(e.g.,anger, runaway,rule breaking),in contrast to aggression and property violations types that primarily comprise proactive and violent behaviors that are offensive and instrumental (e.g.,bullying,vandalism).Proactive and reactive aggres-sions are two distinct subtypes of externalizing behavior and they have been found to differ in adult outcome. Proactive individuals tend to bully and be very unemo-tional,whereas reactive individuals show impulsive,angry responses to aversive events,particularly perceived by interpersonal threat[24,25].In accordance with previous findings on reactive and proactive aggressive behavior,we found that children with more reactive,nondestructive externalizing problems(i.e.,status violations and opposi-tional)suffer from later internalizing problems[25,37].Because externalizing behaviors are expected to change largely in level and growth during childhood and adoles-cence[5,38],and are therefore best described from a developmental point of view[39],we explored outcomes of trajectories of behavior in the current study,taking into account the developmental change through childhood and adolescence.We used LCGA to analyze trajectories of externalizing behavior,because this method is well adapted for modeling growth of phenomena within a population in which population members are not following a common developmental process of growth or decline.Consequently, we were able to report unique associations between dis-tinctive developmental trajectories within every external-izing behavior type and adult internalizing and externalizing outcomes.In accordance withfindings of previous studies that investigated development of externalizing behavior,we found that children in high-level externalizing trajectories are most likely to suffer from adult problems[5,8,11,15, 22,23].Children in the most severe,high-level trajectory of opposition and property violations were almost four to five times more likely than children not displaying these problems to suffer from any disruptive behavior in adult-hood.Findings of a study that investigated continuity of externalizing behavior up to the age of32show that externalizing individuals in a severe‘life-course-persistent’trajectory suffered from the most mental health problems [5].In a review of conduct disorder and its outcomes in general population studies it was found that increasing severity of externalizing behavior was associated with an increasing risk of an emotional disorder in adulthood[11]. What this study adds to the literature is that we extend the abovefindings by confirming that high levels of external-izing behavior in childhood and adolescence are linked to poor outcomes in adulthood even up to age40.However,it should be noted that children in both low-and high-level trajectories of property violations showed。
大学生心理健康问题外文文献最新译文
大学生心理健康问题外文文献最新译文文献出处：Hunt Justin. "Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior among college students." Journal of Adolescent Health46.1 (2014): 3-10.原文Mental Health Problems and Help-Seeking Behavior Among College StudentsJustin HuntAlthough the homicides by mentally disturbed college students at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University recently captured popular attention, these are atypical cases within a much broader public health issue. Mental disorders are as prevalent among college students as same-aged nonstudents, and these disorders appear to be increasing in number and severity. College students are often viewed as a privileged population, but they are not immune to the suffering and disability associated with mental illness.Mental health among college students represents not only a growing concern but also an opportunity, because of the large number of people who could be reached during an important period of life. More than 65% of American high school graduates attend postsecondary education, Mental disorders account for nearly one-half of the disease burden for young adults in the United States, and most lifetime mental disorders have first onset by age 24 years. The college years represent a developmentally challenging transition to adulthood, and untreated mental illness may have significant implications for academic success, productivity, substance use, and social relationships.Campuses have many channels through which they mighthave a positive effect on mental health. College represents the only time in many people's lives when a single integrated setting encompasses their main activities—both career-related and social—as well as health services and other support services. Campuses, by their scholarly nature, are also well positioned to develop, evaluate, and disseminate best practices. In short, colleges offer a unique opportunity to address one of the most significant public health problems among late adolescents and young adults.A robust base of research evidence is necessary for colleges and our society more generally to seize this opportunity. The purpose of this report is to review thepublished studies on college student mental health, while also drawing comparisons to the parallel published data on the general adolescent and young adult populations. Throughout this report we use the term ―college‖ to refer generally to postsecondary education, which includes both undergraduate and graduate students. We take the approach of a narrative review, rather than a more formal systematic review, because our aim is to weave together multiple disparate topics in a reasonably concise article. In reviewing the research evidence, we focus primarily on sources that are likely to generalize to the overall populations of interest: national studies and large multi-campus studies. Specifically, we focus on four primary topics: (1) the current state of mental health in the college student population;(2) risk factors among college students; (3) the apparent worsening in recent years of mental health in this population, and potential explanations for this trend; and (4) the extent to which students with mental health problems are receiving treatment. We conclude with a discussion of practices and policiesaddressing mental health and help seeking on college campuses, and we highlight potential opportunities for improvement.Current state of mental health among college studentsMental health problems are highly prevalent among college students, according to several data sources. In the 2008 National College Health Assessment sponsored by the American College Health Association (ACHA-NCHA), more than one in three undergraduates reported ―feeling so depressed it was difficult t o function‖ at least once in the previous year, and nearly one in 10 reported ―seriousl y considering attempting suicide‖ in the previous year . According to a study of 26,000 students from 70 colleges and universities in 2006, 6% of undergraduates and 4% of graduate students reported having seriously considered suicide in the previous 12 months . In our own survey data from random samples at 26 colleges and universities in 2007 and 2009 (the Healthy Minds Study), we found that 17% of students had positive screens for depression according to the Patient Health Questionnaire–9, including 9% for major depression, and 10% of students had a positive Patient Health Questionnaire screen for an anxiety disorder (panic or generalized anxiety disorder).Blanco et al compared college students and non–college-attending young adultsacross a wide range of psychiatric disorders in a nationally representative sample, the 2002–2003 National Epidemiological Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). They found that college students and their non–college-attending young adult peers had approximately the same overall 12-month prevalence of mental disorders using a validated and fully structured diagnostic interview (Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule—DSM-IV version).The overall prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders was also roughly equal across the two groups, although the specific condition of bipolar disorder was less prevalent among students. Almost half of college students met the DSM-IV criteria for at least one mental disorder in the previous year, including 18% for a personality disorder, 12% for an anxiety disorder, and 11% for a mood disorder.In conjunction with these findings on internalizing disorders, many studies have documented widespread alcohol misuse on campuses. In the national analysis by Blanco et al, college students had a higher prevalence of alcohol use disorders than their same-age peers but a lower prevalence of drug use disorders and nicotine use. This is consistent with other studies indicating that alcohol use disorders are more prevalent among college students, but nicotine and drug use disorders are more prevalent among same-age nonstudents.Risk factors among college studentsWithin the college population certain subgroups have a significantly higher prevalence of mental health problems, which is consistent with studies of the general population. Male undergraduates are at a higher risk for suicide, but female students are more likely to screen positive for major depression and anxiety disorders. Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are at a higher risk for depressive and anxiety symptoms. Poor men, low social support, or victimization by sexual violence. Although mental health clearly varies across certain demographic and social factors, relatively little is known about how it varies with respect to factors more specific to the college setting, such as academic workload and competition. Some studies show that personality traits, such as perfectionism,are important moderators determining the amount of psychological distress that students report as a result of their collegestudies. The academic environment may be particularly stressful for minority students at predominantly white institutions, according to some studies. We were, however, unable to identify any studies with representative samples on how mental health relates to other characteristics of the academic setting, such as enrollment size, selectivity, competitiveness, supportiveness of academic personnel, and field of study. As in the general population of youth, risk factors for mental disorders among students must also be understood in the context of genetic factors and how these pre-existing vulnerabilities interact with environmental factors in college. Research on these relationships is still in its infancy for college populations and will warrant increased attention in future work. Learning more about the role of these factors in mental health will be useful for informing efforts to create campus environments that promote better mental health.Are mental health problems increasing among college students?The epidemiological data summarized above clearly indicate that mental health problems are highly prevalent among college students. Less clear is whether students are more psychologically disturbed today than they were in the past. Two national surveys are cited frequently when researchers, clinicians, and policymakers argue there is increasing prevalence of mental illness among students. First, in a 2008 national survey of directors of campus psychological counseling centers, 95% of directors reported a significant increase in severe psychologicalproblems among their students. Second, in the ACHA-NCHA national surveys of students, the proportion reporting to have ever. Although impressive and concerning, this evidence may reflect increases in help-seeking behavior as opposed to increases in overall prevalence of disorders. In this section, we consider this alternative explanation in light of available evidence from the general population. We then consider, if the prevalence of disorders has in fact increased, whether such an increase would likely be a result of broader societal trends or factors specific to college populations and settings. In framing this discussion, we acknowledge the multiple challenges to interpreting the evidence including the confounding of changing stigma associated with mental illness and seeking mental health care, changing DSM diagnostic criteria, and possibly improved screening for mental illness.To begin, the near unanimity by which college mental health personnel report increasing numbers of serious mental health problems leaves little doubt that more of these students than ever are coming into contact with campus health services. These reports may, however, represent an increase in help-seeking behavior rather than a true increase in prevalence. The same question applies to other evidence of increasing severity or prevalence among campus health service and counseling clients. In the absence of consistent data over time on disorders in overall student populations, it is unclear how the overall prevalence and severity have changed.One strategy for trying to interpret the trends is to examine how the increase in the number of students with mental disorders who are in contact with health providers (e.g., the increase from 10 to 15 with diagnosed depression) compareswith evidence on increases in help-seeking behavior, conditional on having a diagnosable disorder, in general populations. Because there are no consistent data on mental health treatment over time from representative adolescent populations, we examine trends from general adult samples. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study was one of the first large-scale studies to provide data on help seeking, showing that in 1985 only 19% of respondents with recent mental disorders received any treatment in the year before the interview. In data collected in 1992, the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS) found that 25% of those diagnosed with 12-month disorders received treatment in the year before the interview, indicating an increase relative to the 1980s. Most recently, the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) fielded in 2002 demonstrated that the increase in help seeking continued between the early 1990s and the early 2000s: 41% of the NCS-R respondents meeting criteria for a past-year disorder received treatment in the previous year . Considering that attitudes toward seeking mental health treatment seem to have improved more in young adults than in older adults , it seems plausible that the increase in help seeking, conditional on mental health status, among college students has been at least as large as that in the general adult population.译文大学生心理健康问题和求助行为贾斯汀·亨特尽管弗吉尼亚理工大学杀人案的大学生患有一定程度的精神障碍以及北伊利诺伊大学最近获得的消息，这些是广泛的公共卫生问题里的非典型病例。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
（3）数据搜集
两组共有：通过电话采访，采用7-day physical activity recall量表收集起始、3月、6月的数据。 EI组：每月完成Internet quetionary，用以评估 被试的自我效能感、决策均衡，对变化的认知、对 锻炼的结果预期。3个月时完成一份关于互联网特 征有效性的问卷 SI组：每月完成关于非体育锻炼话题的问卷
7 研究结论
• 互联网对久坐成人的体育锻炼干预有着积 极影响。将来的互联网式体育锻炼干预需 紧跟互联网技术的发展，比如可将WEB2.0 的设计理念引入到互联网式体育锻炼的干 预上，使网站与被试可以有更多互动，同 时，也可考虑进行移动通讯式体育锻炼干 预。
8 反思、启示
（1）问题提出步步推进，具有很强的逻辑性。 （2）实验设计巧妙，整个实验过程中实验者与被试没 有过面对面的时候，做到了真正意义上的“非面对面 式”体育锻炼干预。 （3）可以看到国外对体育锻炼的重视及体育锻炼的重 要性。 （4）实验中的不足之处：SI组被试需通过“学习主页” 访问六大网站，这样研究者才能收集到相应数据，但 如果被试直接访问六大网站，则会遗失一些必要数据。
5 结果
（1）组间效应：三个月时实验处理的效果显著 （C2(1, 53)= 4.78,p=0.03,六个月时的实验处理效 果不显著（C2(1, 53)= 0.61，p=0.44） （2）组内效应（三个月到六个月之间）：EI组不 显著（Z=0.11，p=0.91），SI组显著（Z=2.38， p=0.02） （3）三个月时：EI组满足“联邦政府体育锻炼指 导意见”标准人数百分比40%VS SI组10.7%，C2(1, 53)= 6.11，p=0.01，差异显著；六个月时：EI组 48%VS SI组35.7%，C2(1, 53)=0.82，p=0.36，差异 不显著。
6 结果讨论
• 观察到了组间差异，这在以前是没有的，推 动了“互联网式体育锻炼干预”研究领域的 发展。未来的研究可着重研究是互联网的哪 个具体特征促进了被试体育锻炼的增强，哪 个促进短期增强，哪个促进长期增强。 • 结论不可广泛推广，因为被试群体有限制： 女性较多，中年、 白种人群体、约一半人为 大学学历、低收入群体、小样本、数据来自 被试自我报告。
（4）干预设计 采用随机程序（MATLAB R2008b）分配被试， 每位被试被按数字顺序分配到一个密封的信封， 信封中包括实验处理内容，信封是签字并盖章 的，以保证机密性。对随机程序一无所知的实 验助手在被试登记时打开信封，并告知被试该 如何做。各小组任务分配好后，会收到各组独 自的学习网页并附有用户名及密码，在被试进 行登录操作时会了解到自己应该学习的内容及 接受的培训。另有一名对实验处理一无所知的 实验助手负责进行初次和二次收据的收集。
（2）被试筛选 共有527名人员报名，最终进入数据分析的共 有53名被试，随机分入EI组25人（80%女性，年龄： 38.5+-13.1years）,SI组28人（71.4%女性，年龄： 36.8+-11.1years）,最终分别有22和26名被试完 成了6个月的实验评估，被试中有一半以上是大学 学历，80%以上是白种人，研究时间为：2010年2 月——2011年2月。
3 研究方法
（1）焦点小组（Focus Groups） 三个焦点小组，共17位参与者。采用名义群体技 术来讨论“对促进体育锻炼有用的互联网特征”，参 与者讨论的前一周，收到基于“社会认知理论”的互 联网特征的邮件，预先熟悉这些特征，一周后将已熟 悉的互联网特征进行喜好程度的排序，最终得到五个 有利于促进体育锻炼的互联网特征，研究者将其设计 到升级版的互联网网站中：①自我管理及目标设定： 体育锻炼记录表②知觉环境：地理位置标记 ③社会 支持：“向专家请教板块”④观察学习：体育锻炼影 像⑤形势：同伴体育锻炼进展的定期更新
1 研究背景
·完全的互联网式体育锻炼干预方法与公开的可获得 的其它方法相比，是否有促进人们体育锻炼的积极 作用，这一点还没有人进行过相关研究。但是与此 相似的互联网式减肥、戒烟等干预的研究证明，互 联网式的干预方式较常规方式更为有效。
2 研究目的
本研究是研究者上一个研究的继续，目的是比较升级 版的互联网式体育锻炼干预（enhanced internet,EI 组）与六大著名公共服务项目网站（standard internet， SI组）相比，哪个对促进人们体育锻炼更为有效。实验 的预期假设是在3个月中、6个月中，EI组的体育锻炼 的水平要高于SI组。
INF：3.873
方法 4、数据分析 5、实验结果 6、结果讨论 7、研究结论 8、反思、启示
1 研究背景
• 体能活动不足被认为是导致死亡的重要原因之一，并被 认为是21世纪最大的公共健康问题。 • 美国卫生部于2008年颁布联邦政府体育锻炼指导意见， 陈述到所有健康成人为了身体健康每周至少应进行150 分钟的体育锻炼。但实际上只有49%的美国成人能做到 这一点，本研究的“体育锻炼干预”便是基于此点开展 的。 • “面对面干预”的方式虽然对促进体育锻炼很有效果， 但实践过程中对参与者存在一定的困难：交通的问题、 花费时间、宣传材料的花费。而“非面对面的互联网式 干预”方式可解决“面对面干预”遇到的难题。
（6）SI组 ①浏览六大对体育锻炼有促进作用的网站 ②为了统计被试对六大网站的访问量，要求被试通过 “学习主页”（study homepage）来访问六大网站 ③经常邮件通知被试去关注六大网站。发送频率及时间 与EI组相同。 ④六大网站访问次数：前三个月平均5.3次/月，前六个 月平均9.4次/月。访问次数较少原因：可能是由于被试 没有通过“学习主页”去访问六大网站导致无法统计访 问次数。
1 研究背景
·Lewis et al.最近的一项研究表明，互联网传 播体育锻炼干预知识要比派发打印资料更为有效。 ·虽然先前有研究证明互联网式体育锻炼干预对单组 被试跨时间条件下有着中等大小的显著效应，可以 促进被试体育锻炼，但在组间却未发现显著差异。 ·先前关于互联网式体育锻炼干预研究中最少也需要 有一次面对面的访谈，这无疑会增加额外变量影响 实验结果。
第二次文献报告
Title : Randomized Controlled Trial Testing an Internet Physical Activity Intervention for Sedentary Adults 一项针对久坐成人互联网式体育锻炼干预的随机控 制实验研究 Name of journal：Health Psychology(2013)
组间效应结果图
6 结果讨论
·EI组被试在三个月及六个月时满足“联邦政府体育 锻炼指导意见”标准人数百分比分别为40%、48%，这 个结果很重要，因为之前很少有研究证明干预组体育 锻炼效果要好于控制组。 ·SI组满足“联邦政府体育锻炼指导意见”标准人数 从三个月到六个月逐渐增长，这是以前的研究结果中 不曾出现的，这可能与被试使用互联网频率增加有关， 而EI组满足标准的人从三个月到六个月有所下降，可 能与EI组网站上提供的工具（板块）较多，导致内部 动机降低有关。
（5）EI组 ①给予的长期目标：每周中等强度的体育锻炼时间不得 少于150分钟，每次持续时间不得少于10分钟。 ②有权限进入到研究者新开发的升级版的网站，在完成 每月的Internet quetionary后计算机系统会自动为每 位被试提供直接的、量身定做的、激发动机的体育锻炼 信息。 ③升级版的网站考虑到焦点小组提到的五个互联网特征 并开设对应版块，有些板块时常需要更新以保证被试对 网站的持续关注 ④鼓励被试通过网站主页去关注五个板块，经常邮件通 知被试去关注升级版的网址。（第一个月一周一次，第 二、三个月两周一次，第四到六个月一个月一次。）
4 数据分析
(1)基准数据：ANOVA、chi-square test (2)组间、组内差异：广义估计方程下的重复 测量回归模型（repeated-measures regression model implemented with generalized estimating equations(GEE)） （3）3个月、6个月时两组满足“联邦政府体 育锻炼指导意见”标准的百分比：chi-square test
⑤要求被试每天在网站上记录中等强度体育锻 炼时间或运动的脚步数。这些数据会作为“同 伴活动进展”板块的数据进行展示。 ⑥EI组前三个月平均每月登录网站18.3次，整 个六个月平均每月登录32.3次。 ⑦对五个板块促进体育锻炼的排序：地理位置 标记（M=3.67）、体育锻炼记录表（M=3.52） 向专家请教（M=2.81）、同伴活动进展的定期 更新（2.53）、体育锻炼影像（M=2.74）
3 研究方法
（2）被试筛选 筛选标准：健康、久坐（每周中等强度体育锻 炼时间少于60分钟）的成年男女，18—65岁， 拥有电脑。 排除标准：限制运动；有过明显的和复杂病因 的心脏、心血管、呼吸、神经系统方面的疾病 历史；正在或打算怀孕；过去6个月间住过院； 在服药，而这些药物影响体育锻炼；没有电脑 的人群。