| Literature DB >> 33408537 |
Chang-Hong Zhang1, Ge Li2, Zhao-Ya Fan1, Xiao-Jun Tang1, Fan Zhang1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A much higher prevalence of alexithymia has been found in medical students compared with the general population. This study aimed to test the potential mediating effect of psychological capital on the relationship between childhood trauma and alexithymia in Chinese medical students, thereby providing clues for future interventions aimed at dealing with alexithymia in this population.Entities:
Keywords: alexithymia; childhood trauma; interventions; mediating effect; medical students; psychological capital
Year: 2020 PMID: 33408537 PMCID: PMC7781113 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S288647
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Figure 1The hypothetical mediation model.
Figure 2The structural equation modelling for the hypothetical model.
Descriptive Statistics and Differences in Alexithymia Among Variables (n=1018)
| Variables | n (%) | Difficulty in Identifying Feelings | Difficulty in Describing Feelings | Externally Oriented Thinking | Alexithymia |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 391(38.4) | 17.81(5.22) | 13.51(3.24) | 20.96(3.56) | 52.28(9.87) |
| Female | 627(61.6) | 17.83(4.63) | 13.51(2.88) | 21.11(3.33) | 52.45(8.85) |
| t | −0.088 | −0.017 | −0.660 | −0.286 | |
| P-value | 0.930 | 0.987 | 0.510 | 0.775 | |
| Residence | |||||
| Countryside | 468(46.0) | 18.09(4.73) | 13.80(2.86) | 21.43(3.04) | 53.32(8.55) |
| City | 550(54.0) | 17.60(4.97) | 13.26(3.13) | 20.73(3.68) | 51.58(9.74) |
| t | 1.589 | 2.880 | 3.364 | 3.000 | |
| P-value | 0.112 | 0.004** | 0.001** | 0.003** | |
| Only child | |||||
| Yes | 392(38.5) | 17.61(5.04) | 13.26(3.25) | 20.79(3.66) | 51.66(10.01) |
| No | 626(61.5) | 17.96(4.75) | 13.66(2.86) | 21.22(3.25) | 52.83(8.72) |
| t | −1.095 | −2.006 | −1.911 | −1.915 | |
| P-value | 0.274 | 0.045* | 0.056 | 0.056 | |
| School types | |||||
| Vocational school | 486(47.7) | 18.27(5.07) | 13.72(2.95) | 21.44(3.25) | 53.42(9.14) |
| University | 532(52.3) | 17.41(4.63) | 13.32(3.07) | 20.70(3.53) | 51.43(9.26) |
| t | 2.822 | 2.116 | 3.457 | 3.456 | |
| P-value | 0.005** | 0.035* | 0.001** | 0.001** |
Notes: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01; “t” refers to the statistical value of the student’s t test.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Variables in the Whole Sample (r, n=1018)
| Variables | M±SD | Childhood Trauma | Psychological Capital | Alexithymia |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Childhood trauma | 37.24±11.80 | 1 | −0.229** | 0.314** |
| Emotional abuse | 7.33±2.81 | 0.765** | −0.199** | 0.248** |
| Emotional neglect | 10.25±4.88 | 0.775** | −0.246** | 0.291** |
| Physical abuse | 6.14±2.55 | 0.744** | −0.075* | 0.173** |
| Physical neglect | 7.80±3.06 | 0.822** | −0.186** | 0.253** |
| Sexual abuse | 5.72±2.21 | 0.655** | −0.081** | 0.166** |
| Psychological capital | 100.51±15.66 | −0.229** | 1 | −0.370** |
| Hope | 24.82±4.71 | −0.181** | 0.867** | −0.317** |
| Resilience | 25.00±4.59 | −0.181** | 0.871** | 0.320** |
| Optimism | 25.15±5.02 | −0.245** | 0.805** | −0.295** |
| Self-efficacy | 25.55±4.51 | −0.150** | 0.784** | −0.300** |
| Alexithymia | 52.38±9.25 | 0.314** | −0.370** | 1 |
| Difficulty in identifying feelings | 17.82±4.86 | 0.304** | −0.336** | 0.896** |
| Difficulty in describing feelings | 13.51±3.02 | 0.240** | −0.304** | 0.860** |
| Externally oriented thinking | 21.05±3.42 | 0.204** | −0.256** | 0.672** |
Notes: M±SD refers to mean value standard deviation; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
The Standard Effects in the Hypothetical Model
| Effect | Path | Estimate | P-value | 95% Confidence Intervals | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bounds | Upper Bounds | ||||
| Direct | CT→ Alexithymia | 0.219 | <0.001 | 0.129 | 0.284 |
| CT→PC | −0.172 | <0.001 | −0.264 | −0.080 | |
| PC→ Alexithymia | −0.346 | <0.001 | −0.430 | −0.287 | |
| Indirect | CT→PC→ Alexithymia | 0.060 | <0.001 | 0.071 | 0.261 |
| Total effect | CT→ Alexithymia | 0.279 | <0.001 | 0.190 | 0.347 |
Abbreviations: CT, childhood trauma; PC, psychological capital.
The Results of Multiple-Group Invariance Analysis
| Variables | Model | χ | df | CFI | NFI | TLI | RMSEA | IFI | Δχ | Δdf | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residence | UN | 265.988 | 92 | 0.967 | 0.951 | 0.953 | 0.043 | 0.967 | - | - | |
| MW | 275.418 | 100 | 0.967 | 0.949 | 0.956 | 0.042 | 0.967 | 9.431 | 8 | 0.307 | |
| SW | 281.446 | 103 | 0.966 | 0.948 | 0.957 | 0.041 | 0.967 | 15.456 | 11 | 0.162 | |
| School | UN | 294.234 | 92 | 0.960 | 0.946 | 0.945 | 0.047 | 0.962 | - | - | |
| type | MW | 307.909 | 99 | 0.961 | 0.944 | 0.948 | 0.046 | 0.961 | 13.674 | 7 | 0.057 |
| SW | 309.184 | 102 | 0.961 | 0.943 | 0.950 | 0.045 | 0.961 | 14.949 | 10 | 0.134 |
Abbreviations: UN, unconstrained; MW, measurement weights; SW, structural weights; χ2, chi-square statistic; df, degrees of freedom; CFI, comparative fit index; NFI, normed fit index; TLI, Tucker Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error; IFI, incremental fit index; Δχ2 and Δdf refer to the difference in Chi-square statistic and degrees of freedom respectively.