Psychometric evaluation of the Estonian version of the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1).

IF 4 2区医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1186/s40479-022-00197-7

Maarja-Liisa Oitsalu, Maie Kreegipuu, Joost Hutsebaut

{"title":"Psychometric evaluation of the Estonian version of the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1).","authors":"Maarja-Liisa Oitsalu, Maie Kreegipuu, Joost Hutsebaut","doi":"10.1186/s40479-022-00197-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders introduced a dimensional perspective on personality disorders. The model assesses functioning in four domains: Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy, and Intimacy. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) in Estonian.Method: The sample consists of 131 participants: 58 from the general population and 73 from a mixed clinical sample that is further divided into a mood and anxiety disorder sample and personality disorder sample. All participants completed the STiP-5.1 interview and the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF 2.0).Results: The Estonian STiP-5.1 interview has good internal consistency (McDonald's ω between .94-.98) and high convergent validity (correlations with LPFS-BF 2.0 above .7). Interview scores successfully differentiated the general population from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen's d = 2.68), as well as patients with personality disorder from those without (Cohen's d = 1.76). The LPFS-BF 2.0 total score differentiates the general population sample from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen's d = 1.99) but not the personality disorder sample from other clinical sample participants.Conclusions: The properties of the Estonian STiP-5.1 replicate those of other languages, and empirically support a unified personality functioning dimension that can be meaningfully thought of as reflecting impairments in self and interpersonal functioning. Findings of this study will be discussed in the light of the ongoing debate on the dimensionality of personality pathology and the use of self-report versus interview measures for assessing personality pathology.","PeriodicalId":48586,"journal":{"name":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9714151/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-022-00197-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders introduced a dimensional perspective on personality disorders. The model assesses functioning in four domains: Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy, and Intimacy. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) in Estonian.

Method: The sample consists of 131 participants: 58 from the general population and 73 from a mixed clinical sample that is further divided into a mood and anxiety disorder sample and personality disorder sample. All participants completed the STiP-5.1 interview and the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF 2.0).

Results: The Estonian STiP-5.1 interview has good internal consistency (McDonald's ω between .94-.98) and high convergent validity (correlations with LPFS-BF 2.0 above .7). Interview scores successfully differentiated the general population from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen's d = 2.68), as well as patients with personality disorder from those without (Cohen's d = 1.76). The LPFS-BF 2.0 total score differentiates the general population sample from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen's d = 1.99) but not the personality disorder sample from other clinical sample participants.

Conclusions: The properties of the Estonian STiP-5.1 replicate those of other languages, and empirically support a unified personality functioning dimension that can be meaningfully thought of as reflecting impairments in self and interpersonal functioning. Findings of this study will be discussed in the light of the ongoing debate on the dimensionality of personality pathology and the use of self-report versus interview measures for assessing personality pathology.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

爱沙尼亚版 DSM-5 人格功能半结构化访谈（STiP-5.1）的心理计量评估。

背景：DSM-5 人格障碍替代模型引入了人格障碍的维度视角。该模型评估四个领域的功能：身份（Identity）、自我导向（Self-Direction）、移情（Empathy）和亲密（Intimacy）。本研究评估了爱沙尼亚语 DSM-5 人格功能半结构化访谈（STiP-5.1）的心理测量特性：方法：样本由 131 名参与者组成：方法：样本由 131 名参与者组成：58 名来自普通人群，73 名来自混合临床样本，该样本又分为情绪与焦虑症样本和人格障碍样本。所有参与者都完成了 STiP-5.1 访谈和人格功能水平量表-简表（LPFS-BF 2.0）：爱沙尼亚 STiP-5.1 访谈具有良好的内部一致性（麦克唐纳 ω 介于 0.94-.98 之间）和较高的收敛效度（与 LPFS-BF 2.0 的相关性高于 0.7）。访谈得分成功地区分了普通人群和混合临床样本（Cohen's d = 2.68），以及人格障碍患者和非人格障碍患者（Cohen's d = 1.76）。LPFS-BF 2.0总分可以区分普通人群样本和混合临床样本（Cohen's d = 1.99），但不能区分人格障碍样本和其他临床样本参与者：爱沙尼亚 STiP-5.1 的特性与其他语言的特性相同，并从经验上支持了一个统一的人格功能维度，可以有意义地认为它反映了自我和人际功能的损伤。本研究的结果将结合目前关于人格病理学的维度以及使用自我报告与访谈测量来评估人格病理学的争论进行讨论。

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

Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation Psychology-Clinical Psychology

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

9.80%

发文量

审稿时长

28 weeks

期刊介绍： Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation provides a platform for researchers and clinicians interested in borderline personality disorder (BPD) as a currently highly challenging psychiatric disorder. Emotion dysregulation is at the core of BPD but also stands on its own as a major pathological component of the underlying neurobiology of various other psychiatric disorders. The journal focuses on the psychological, social and neurobiological aspects of emotion dysregulation as well as epidemiology, phenomenology, pathophysiology, treatment, neurobiology, genetics, and animal models of BPD.