All the Same? Different Measures of Personality Functioning Are Similar but Distinct. A Comparative Study from a Psychodynamic Perspective Using Exploratory Graph Analysis.

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of personality assessment Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1080/00223891.2023.2251150
Larissa Vierl, Susanne Hörz-Sagstetter, Cord Benecke, Carsten Spitzer, Florian Juen
{"title":"All the Same? Different Measures of Personality Functioning Are Similar but Distinct. A Comparative Study from a Psychodynamic Perspective Using Exploratory Graph Analysis.","authors":"Larissa Vierl, Susanne Hörz-Sagstetter, Cord Benecke, Carsten Spitzer, Florian Juen","doi":"10.1080/00223891.2023.2251150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Personality functioning (PF) is a central construct in many theories of personality pathology. Based on psychodynamic theories, two screening questionnaires to assess PF are widely used: The Inventory of Personality Organization-16 item version and the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis-Structure Questionnaire Short Form. This study aimed to explore the similarities and differences of the two questionnaires in a large clinical sample of <i>N</i> = 1636 psychotherapeutic inpatients. Correlation analyses were conducted to examine the associations between the global scores and between the subscales. The study further used Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) to explore the dimensionality of the items. The stability of estimates was evaluated using a bootstrap version of EGA (bootEGA). The results indicated that the two questionnaires are highly correlated, yet not multicollinear, and moderate to large correlations were found between their subscales. EGA revealed six dimensions that fairly represented the original subscales. BootEGA showed that the dimensions and items were stable, except for one item that did not load sufficiently on any dimension. The findings suggest that although the questionnaires are highly correlated, their subscales tap into distinct domains of PF. We discuss implications stemming from these findings for clinical and scientific practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":16707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2023.2251150","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Personality functioning (PF) is a central construct in many theories of personality pathology. Based on psychodynamic theories, two screening questionnaires to assess PF are widely used: The Inventory of Personality Organization-16 item version and the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis-Structure Questionnaire Short Form. This study aimed to explore the similarities and differences of the two questionnaires in a large clinical sample of N = 1636 psychotherapeutic inpatients. Correlation analyses were conducted to examine the associations between the global scores and between the subscales. The study further used Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA) to explore the dimensionality of the items. The stability of estimates was evaluated using a bootstrap version of EGA (bootEGA). The results indicated that the two questionnaires are highly correlated, yet not multicollinear, and moderate to large correlations were found between their subscales. EGA revealed six dimensions that fairly represented the original subscales. BootEGA showed that the dimensions and items were stable, except for one item that did not load sufficiently on any dimension. The findings suggest that although the questionnaires are highly correlated, their subscales tap into distinct domains of PF. We discuss implications stemming from these findings for clinical and scientific practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
都一样吗?人格功能的不同测量方法相似但有区别。利用探索性图表分析从心理动力学角度进行的比较研究》。
人格功能(PF)是许多人格病理学理论的核心概念。基于心理动力学理论,有两种评估人格功能的筛查问卷被广泛使用:这两份筛查问卷分别是:人格组织量表-16 个项目版和操作化心理动力学诊断-结构问卷简表。本研究的目的是在一个由 1636 名心理治疗住院患者组成的大型临床样本中探讨这两种问卷的异同。研究采用了相关性分析来检验总分和各分量表之间的关联。研究还使用了探索性图表分析法(EGA)来探索项目的维度。估计值的稳定性是通过 EGA 的 bootstrap 版本(bootEGA)进行评估的。结果表明,这两份问卷高度相关,但不存在多重共线性,其子量表之间存在中等至较大的相关性。EGA 显示了六个维度,这些维度公平地代表了原始的子量表。BootEGA 显示,除了一个项目没有在任何维度上充分加载外,其他维度和项目都很稳定。这些研究结果表明,虽然问卷之间存在高度相关性,但其子量表所涉及的 PF 领域却截然不同。我们讨论了这些发现对临床和科学实践的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA) primarily publishes articles dealing with the development, evaluation, refinement, and application of personality assessment methods. Desirable articles address empirical, theoretical, instructional, or professional aspects of using psychological tests, interview data, or the applied clinical assessment process. They also advance the measurement, description, or understanding of personality, psychopathology, and human behavior. JPA is broadly concerned with developing and using personality assessment methods in clinical, counseling, forensic, and health psychology settings; with the assessment process in applied clinical practice; with the assessment of people of all ages and cultures; and with both normal and abnormal personality functioning.
期刊最新文献
Validation of the Persian Version of the ICD-11 Compatible Personality Inventory for DSM-5- Brief Form Plus, Modified. Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the German Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (SIFS). Improving the Objective Measurement of Alexithymia Using a Computer-Scored Alexithymia Provoked Response Questionnaire with an Online Sample. Unmasking Verbal Defensiveness: The Role of Psychological Threat in Sentence Completion Tests. Can Forced-Choice Response Format Reduce Faking of Socially Aversive Personality Traits?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1