Comparing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorder models scored from the same interview.

Personality disorders Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1037/per0000663
Whitney R Ringwald, William C Woods, Aidan G C Wright
{"title":"Comparing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorder models scored from the same interview.","authors":"Whitney R Ringwald, William C Woods, Aidan G C Wright","doi":"10.1037/per0000663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) traits were designed to maintain continuity with the Section II personality disorder (PD) diagnoses by retaining the same clinical information. Whether the AMPD traits achieve this is not well established. Prior work testing incremental validity of AMPD traits and Section II diagnoses is limited by the fact each model was measured by a different instrument or rater, making it unclear whether discrepancies are due to the constructs or methods. Here, we compare the incremental validity of AMPD traits versus Section II PDs assessed by the same instrument and rater. Participants (<i>N</i> = 311, 50% received past-year mental health treatment) completed a clinical interview, baseline self-reports, and 14-day ambulatory assessment protocol. Interviewers rated AMPD domains, facets, and Section II criteria from the same interview (Structured Interview for <i>DSM-IV</i> Personality). We used hierarchical regression models to evaluate the variance predicted in 17 clinically relevant cross-sectional and momentary variables by the AMPD traits and Section II PDs. Incremental <i>R</i>² showed that Section II PDs account for little variance in outcomes over and above the AMPD domains/facets, whereas the AMPD facets were generally more predictive of outcomes than the Section II PDs. Results add novel evidence that dimensional PD traits-not a particular assessment method-are equivalent or superior to PD categories for predicting social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) traits were designed to maintain continuity with the Section II personality disorder (PD) diagnoses by retaining the same clinical information. Whether the AMPD traits achieve this is not well established. Prior work testing incremental validity of AMPD traits and Section II diagnoses is limited by the fact each model was measured by a different instrument or rater, making it unclear whether discrepancies are due to the constructs or methods. Here, we compare the incremental validity of AMPD traits versus Section II PDs assessed by the same instrument and rater. Participants (N = 311, 50% received past-year mental health treatment) completed a clinical interview, baseline self-reports, and 14-day ambulatory assessment protocol. Interviewers rated AMPD domains, facets, and Section II criteria from the same interview (Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality). We used hierarchical regression models to evaluate the variance predicted in 17 clinically relevant cross-sectional and momentary variables by the AMPD traits and Section II PDs. Incremental R² showed that Section II PDs account for little variance in outcomes over and above the AMPD domains/facets, whereas the AMPD facets were generally more predictive of outcomes than the Section II PDs. Results add novel evidence that dimensional PD traits-not a particular assessment method-are equivalent or superior to PD categories for predicting social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
比较《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版的人格障碍模型,从同一个访谈中得分。
人格障碍替代模式(AMPD)特质的设计目的是通过保留相同的临床信息来保持与第二部分人格障碍(PD)诊断的连续性。AMPD 特质是否能做到这一点,目前尚无定论。之前测试 AMPD 特质和第二部分诊断的增量有效性的工作受到了限制,因为每个模型都是由不同的工具或评定者测量的,因此不清楚差异是由建构还是方法造成的。在此,我们比较了AMPD特质与由相同工具和评分者评估的第二部分PD的增量有效性。参与者(N = 311,50% 在过去一年中接受过心理健康治疗)完成了临床访谈、基线自我报告和 14 天流动评估方案。访谈者对同一访谈(DSM-IV 人格结构访谈)中的 AMPD 领域、侧面和第二部分标准进行评分。我们使用分层回归模型来评估 AMPD 特质和第二部分 PD 预测的 17 个临床相关横断面变量和瞬间变量的变异。递增 R² 显示,第二部分 PD 在 AMPD 领域/面之上对结果的预测差异很小,而 AMPD 面一般比第二部分 PD 更能预测结果。研究结果为我们提供了新的证据,即在预测社交、情感和行为功能方面,PD的维度特质--而非特定的评估方法--等同于或优于PD类别。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparing the clinical utility of the alternative model for personality disorders to the Section II personality disorder model: A randomized controlled trial. Comparing the DSM-5 categorical model of personality disorders and the alternative model of personality disorders regarding clinician judgments of risk and outcome. Comparing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorder models scored from the same interview. Longitudinal prediction of psychosocial functioning outcomes: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Section-II personality disorders versus alternative model personality dysfunction and traits. Prospective prediction of treatment outcomes in adolescents: A head-to-head comparison of alternative model for personality disorder versus borderline personality disorder.
×
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