调查基于性取向的边缘型人格障碍诊断标准和内化/外化领域的不同项目功能。

IF 3.1 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Journal of psychopathology and clinical science Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1037/abn0000941
Shayan Asadi,Takakuni Suzuki,Craig Rodriguez-Seijas
{"title":"调查基于性取向的边缘型人格障碍诊断标准和内化/外化领域的不同项目功能。","authors":"Shayan Asadi,Takakuni Suzuki,Craig Rodriguez-Seijas","doi":"10.1037/abn0000941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is more frequently diagnosed among sexual minority (SM) populations. SM populations also report higher levels of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology, two core domains of clinical problems that are highly comorbid with BPD. Contextual factors (e.g., group-specific norms) might affect endorsement of BPD items for reasons other than an underlying liability to experience BPD or internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Therefore, BPD items may be \"easier\" to endorse (i.e., be associated with lower indicator thresholds) for SM populations relative to non-SM populations. We tested this hypothesis in a large, nationally representative sample of the U.S. population (N = 35,723, SM n = 1,150) using an item response theory approach. Several BPD indicators demonstrated differential item functioning of indicator thresholds, though these results varied based on impairment and sex. Endorsement of impulsive sex and chronic suicidality were consistently associated with lower indicator thresholds among SM groups; lower BPD, internalizing and externalizing factor levels were necessary for item endorsement for SM individuals. Chronic suicidality and impulsivity criteria may conflate BPD-related variance with SM-specific factors, such as potentially nonpathological SM group norms and minority stress processes. Implications for equitable diagnosis and future research on the BPD syndrome in SM populations are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":73914,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating differential item functioning among borderline personality disorder diagnostic criteria and internalizing/externalizing domains based on sexual orientation.\",\"authors\":\"Shayan Asadi,Takakuni Suzuki,Craig Rodriguez-Seijas\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/abn0000941\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is more frequently diagnosed among sexual minority (SM) populations. SM populations also report higher levels of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology, two core domains of clinical problems that are highly comorbid with BPD. Contextual factors (e.g., group-specific norms) might affect endorsement of BPD items for reasons other than an underlying liability to experience BPD or internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Therefore, BPD items may be \\\"easier\\\" to endorse (i.e., be associated with lower indicator thresholds) for SM populations relative to non-SM populations. We tested this hypothesis in a large, nationally representative sample of the U.S. population (N = 35,723, SM n = 1,150) using an item response theory approach. Several BPD indicators demonstrated differential item functioning of indicator thresholds, though these results varied based on impairment and sex. Endorsement of impulsive sex and chronic suicidality were consistently associated with lower indicator thresholds among SM groups; lower BPD, internalizing and externalizing factor levels were necessary for item endorsement for SM individuals. Chronic suicidality and impulsivity criteria may conflate BPD-related variance with SM-specific factors, such as potentially nonpathological SM group norms and minority stress processes. Implications for equitable diagnosis and future research on the BPD syndrome in SM populations are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":73914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000941\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychopathology and clinical science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

边缘型人格障碍(BPD)在性少数群体(SM)中的诊断率更高。性少数群体还报告了更高水平的内化和外化精神病理学,这是临床问题的两个核心领域,与 BPD 高度合并。情境因素(如特定群体的规范)可能会影响对 BPD 项目的认可,其原因可能不在于 BPD 或内化和外化精神病理学的潜在责任。因此,相对于非SM人群,SM人群可能 "更容易 "认可BPD项目(即与较低的指标阈值相关)。我们使用项目反应理论方法,在一个具有全国代表性的大型美国人口样本(N = 35,723, SM n = 1,150)中测试了这一假设。一些 BPD 指标显示了指标阈值的不同项目功能,尽管这些结果因损伤和性别而异。在 SM 群体中,性冲动和慢性自杀的认可一直与较低的指标阈值相关;较低的 BPD、内化和外化因子水平是 SM 个人认可项目的必要条件。慢性自杀倾向和冲动性标准可能会混淆BPD相关变异与SM特异性因素,如潜在的非病理性SM群体规范和少数群体压力过程。本文讨论了公平诊断的意义以及未来对 SM 群体中 BPD 综合征的研究。(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。
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
Investigating differential item functioning among borderline personality disorder diagnostic criteria and internalizing/externalizing domains based on sexual orientation.
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is more frequently diagnosed among sexual minority (SM) populations. SM populations also report higher levels of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology, two core domains of clinical problems that are highly comorbid with BPD. Contextual factors (e.g., group-specific norms) might affect endorsement of BPD items for reasons other than an underlying liability to experience BPD or internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Therefore, BPD items may be "easier" to endorse (i.e., be associated with lower indicator thresholds) for SM populations relative to non-SM populations. We tested this hypothesis in a large, nationally representative sample of the U.S. population (N = 35,723, SM n = 1,150) using an item response theory approach. Several BPD indicators demonstrated differential item functioning of indicator thresholds, though these results varied based on impairment and sex. Endorsement of impulsive sex and chronic suicidality were consistently associated with lower indicator thresholds among SM groups; lower BPD, internalizing and externalizing factor levels were necessary for item endorsement for SM individuals. Chronic suicidality and impulsivity criteria may conflate BPD-related variance with SM-specific factors, such as potentially nonpathological SM group norms and minority stress processes. Implications for equitable diagnosis and future research on the BPD syndrome in SM populations are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mental illness and identity in adolescents with internalizing problems: A qualitative exploration of identity-relevant narratives. Toward diversification of acute stressors and precision stress research: A stage 2 Registered Report validating a reward-salient stress task in emerging adults. Suicidal thoughts are associated with reduced source attribution of emotion. The utility of high-dosage experiments in everyday life to test theories in clinical science. Beyond a dichotomous operationalization of suicide attempts.
×
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