Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.412462
Title: Understanding psychodermatological distress : constructing a skin shame scale
Author: Scott, Caroline
Awarding Body: University of Sheffield
Current Institution: University of Sheffield
Date of Award: 2004
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
Literature Review: This section offers a review of the literature concerning psychodermatological assessment, that is, the assessment of the interface between the skin and its psychological correlates, and evaluates selected psychodermatological scales. Using defined criteria, fifty articles were identified, including twenty-three scales, which are reviewed in detail. Findings demonstrated that quantitative self-report scales dominated assessment. When evaluated against psychometric and theoretical criteria, the scales were found to have limited robustness and validity. These findings are discussed in relation to the relationship between disease severity and skin-related distress and subsequent theoretical and clinical implications explored. Research Report: Living with a skin condition can lead to considerable psychological distress. Understanding the mechanisms of skin-related distress is crucial in developing a psychodermatological theory and devising meaningful psychological interventions. The III present study employed Kellett's (2002) theory of "dermatological shame" to construct a psychodermatological assessment scale for use in dermatological outpatient populations, in this case, at Barnsley District General Hospital dermatology department. The scale was subjected to exploratory factor analysis and reduced from thirty to twenty-four items. Reliability and validity analyses were then carried out and the results discussed in relation to dermatological shame and cognitive models of disfigurement (Kent & Thompson, 2002; Thompson & Kent, 2001). Critical Appraisal A reflexive account is offered of the research process, through four sections: project conception, study implementation, learning and development, including methodological limitations, and process issues. This section concludes with recommendations for further research.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (D.Clin.Psy.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.412462  DOI: Not available
Share: