Trauma Questionnair: Fill & Download for Free

Hypersexuality and Trauma: a mediation and moderation model from psychopathology to problematic sexual behaviorLilybeth Fontanesi, Daniela Marchetti, Erika Limoncin, Rodolfo Rossi, Filippo Nimbi, Daniele Mollaioli, Andrea Sansone, Elena Colonnello, Chiara Simonelli, Giorgio Di Lorenzo, Emmanuele A Jannini, Giacomo CioccaJournal of Affective Disorders, 2020Introduction. Hypersexuality is a clinical condition regarding the psychopathology of sexual behavior. In this study, we aimed to investigate the role of trauma, through the post-traumatic stress-disorder (PTSD), depression, shame and guilt on the hypersexual behavior.Methods. Through an online platform, a convenience sample of 1025 subjects was recruited (females: n=731; 71.3%; males: 294; 28.7%; age: 29.62±10.90). Recruited subjects compiled a psychometric protocol composed by the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory (HBI) to assess hypersexuality, the International Trauma Questionnaire (ITQ) for PTSD, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to evaluate depression and the State Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS) for shame and guilt. Then a mediation/moderation model was performed for the data analysis.Results. There was a statistically significant direct effect of post-traumatic symptoms on hypersexual behavior.Furthermore, indirect effects were also statistically significant, providing support to the hypothesis that depression and guilt would be serial mediators of trauma-hypersexual behavior relations. The paths through depression and guilt have been found to be the most significant with moderate and high indirect effects on hypersexuality. Moreover, male gender, as covariate variable, is a relevant risk factor for hypersexual behavior.Conclusion. We found the relationship between hypersexuality and trauma describing a possible etiological pathway mainly involving depression, shame and guilt. Hypersexuality can be considered as a reactive form of a major affective psychopathology representing a tip of the iceberg hiding the real issues of a suffering personality. Clinicians and researchers should therefore consider hypersexual behavior in the light of a symptomatic manifestation of a major psychopathology involving the affective aspects of personality.

This study doesn’t prove anything. It is a case study of a 55 year old woman, who is a spiritual leader of Umbanda groups. A thorough history is given of her possession experiences throughout her life. Her possession experiences were associated with a sense of well-being and an absence of negative emotion. During her adult years, other religious people admired her capacity to conjure up her spiritual/possession state. She has some awareness of the experiences when being possessed.1-Though a careful history was given of her early life and later life possession experiences, absolutely no mention was given of her family history and history of traumatic experiences. I must also add, that this is true of almost all studies on spiritual possession, except one from Dr. Ellert Nijenhuis and colleagues (2010). These authors found individuals who had reported experiences of spiritual possession had reported histories of early and/or later adult traumatic experiences.Because a trauma history was never given, it can’t be determined whether this spiritual study case study was pathological or non-pathological.2-The attached study did not have systematic methods for assessing the pathological nature of possession related behaviors. Using rating scales like the Spirit Possession Questionnaire, Checklist Dissociative Symptoms, the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES), Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire, Harvard Trauma Questionnaire, and the Traumatic Experiences Checklist might have helped to reach this threshold. All that is provided is a social history of when and how spiritual possession had occurred.3-In response to the lack of historical context of traumatic experience and negligence in clarifying on dissociative tendencies, somatoform symptoms, and trauma history (also characteristic of Dissociative Identity Disorder) of the individual being described, the study lacked scientific rigor and accuracy.4-This study does not prove that the DSM5 is wrong and does not promote spiritual possession as real. Its lack of scientific rigor precludes any scientific conclusion.Citation:Nijenhuis and Colleagues (2010) Dissociative Symptoms and Reported Trauma Among Patients with Spirit Possession and Matched Healthy Controls in Uganda

Grosjean wasn’t subject to a 53g impact. Unspecified sensors registered briefest split second g-load, probably engine area, in that margin. He was totally okay except for areas of 2nd degree burns to both hands from the 2kg or so of fuel that ignited.It’s not the first time an open wheel formula has gone through or under armco. Clay Regazzoni plowed under one in a F3 at Monaco, saw it coming and ducked down.Grosjean’s Haas arced clockwise for a near straight on impact. The nose punched through the midpoint of the double beam, busted the bolts out, and withstood the abuse prying the steel apart. The super strong survival cell did its job. The top beam skated upwards across the halo tracks and why he wasn’t smacked by the steel, the F1 drivers, tightly belted in, can’t duck down.The impact didn’t knock Grosjean out. About 27 seconds elapsed from armco hit to out of the cell and helped over the armco by Alan van der Merwe, who must’ve singed a couple nose hairs. Grosjean would be: “Uh-oh, this is it, I’m dead” removing the steering wheel, unbuckling the belts, lurching upward, fully adrenalized, pulled back by the helmet wires and drinking tube, ripping these out and leaping out of the car, all engulfed in a fireball. The F1 Medical Team would probably be yelling at Grosjean and why he went towards them instead of the opposite direction and got the standard MD post-trauma questionnaire.Grosjean lived because people like Jackie Stewart, Professor Sid Watkins, Bernie Ecclestone and more made it their mission to improve driver and spectator safety in F1. That medical car tails the field at every race start because of Prof. Watkins. Every safety initiative, all in response to racing fatality and prevention of, are incorporated in these cars, suit, helmet.Two things don’t appear to be taken under serious consideration currently in F1, and there is a full investigation underway over Grosjean’s crash. Barrier testing; opening lap race spotters.The barriers, unlike the cars and driver safety gear, don’t appear to be tested. This guardrail should’ve guarded, deflecting the Haas away, not can opened. There is nothing in the way of spotters, during the frenzied opening lap, to instruct “right side“ or “left side” or “clear.” Grosjean didn’t see or know Kvyat was there in his blind spot when he lunged across to the open lane. A spotter would inform “right side.”