Cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the current relationship interview.

Background: The study of romantic relationships is based on attachment theory and the Current Relationship Interview (CRI) is a powerful tool that allows the optimal investigation of attachment representations toward romantic partners. However, evidence in this field is still unsatisfactory and further research is needed. This study aims to examine the associations between the adult attachment to partner, the style of conflict resolution, and dyadic adjustment. Methods: We administrated the Italian version of the CRI, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), and the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory questionnaire - Section II (ROCI II) - to a sample of 100 heterosexual couples. Results: Individuals with preoccupied attachment reported lower levels of dyadic adjustment and men, but not women, with preoccupied attachment reported lower levels of dyadic cohesion. Levels of dyadic adjustment reported by women/men did not vary according to their attachment types. Levels of dyadic adjustment reported by couples and by women did not vary according to the matching status of attachment types between partners. However, men in romantic relationship characterized by a mismatch between attachment types reported higher levels of consensus compared to their counterparts. Conclusion: The Italian version of the CRI proves an useful tool to investigate processes underlying romantic relationships. The role of current attachment in these processes appears to be highly complex and its investigation might be impacted by methodological issues, calling for additional studies.

A Descriptive Study of Suffered and Witnessed Aggressions in Two Rehabilitative Italian Units.

Aggression issues experienced on the workplace has been globally recognized as a public health issue. Nurses are exposed to a very high risk of becoming victims of workplace aggression. OBJECTIVE: The study describes this phenomenon from nurses perspective in two units resulted to be the more exposed to aggressive behaviour at San Raffaele Hospital in Milan. METHOD: We applied a semi-structured interview to volunteer staff members of the rehabilitative psychiatric and neurological wards of San Raffaele Hospital in Milan. We collected general data on 55 workers, their previous experiences of suffered or witnessed aggression, locations and timing of attacks, methods used to report attacks, subjective opinion about drives, management modalities of aggressive phenomena and any physical and/or psychological impacts. RESULTS: 85% suffered and 80% witnessed aggressions, especially non-physical, mostly in the corridor at 7.00-8.00 pm. The 78.7% reported no emotional trauma whereas the 21.3% reported physical injury. Aggressive behaviours linked to the patient's pathology were more easily tolerated. According to participants opinion, the interaction between psychopathological aspects and environmental features increase the risk of an aggressive behaviour. The 81% of interviewed reported to be able to manage patients' aggressiveness considering their previous experiences more helpful than training. DISCUSSION: We confirm literature data about high percentage of witnessed and suffered aggression and the well-known healthworkers tendency to consider violent and aggressive behaviours as "part of the job" . Professional figures need to be formed with specific trainings focused on early identification, communication strategies, and de-escalation techniques.

DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder Dysfunctional Personality Traits as Predictors of Self-Reported Aggression in an Italian Sample of Consecutively Admitted, Personality-Disordered Psychotherapy Patients.

In order to assess the relationships between DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) maladaptive personality traits and self-reports of aggression, 508 Italian adult participants who met at least one DSM-IV Axis II/DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) diagnosis were administered the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ). Analysis results showed that multiple regression results, PID-5 Hostility, Callousness, and Risk Taking trait scale scores explained a large amount of variance in AQ Physical Aggression (PA) scores. Moreover, PID-5 Hostility, Callousness, and Risk Taking explained more than 20% of the variance in the AQ Physical Aggression scale scores that was left unexplained by selected continuously scored DSM-IV Axis II/DSM-5 Section II PDs, whereas SCID-II Paranoid, Narcissistic, Borderline, and Antisocial PDs added only 4% of variance to the amount of variance in AQ Physical Aggression scores that was already explained by the PID-5 trait scale scores.