对《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版边缘型人格障碍标准在异性恋、女同性恋、男同性恋和双性恋成年人中的测量不变性进行评估。

Personality disorders Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1037/per0000696
E Elisa Carsten, Marina Bornovalova, Craig Rodriguez-Seijas
{"title":"对《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版边缘型人格障碍标准在异性恋、女同性恋、男同性恋和双性恋成年人中的测量不变性进行评估。","authors":"E Elisa Carsten, Marina Bornovalova, Craig Rodriguez-Seijas","doi":"10.1037/per0000696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a robust, yet poorly understood relationship between nonheterosexual orientation and borderline personality disorder (BPD), with lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals evidencing greater BPD symptoms compared to heterosexual individuals. Recent evidence suggests possible psychometric bias in BPD diagnostic criteria leading to greater endorsement among sexual minority individuals, which hinders researchers' ability to make valid group comparisons. The present study utilized an epidemiological sample of 35,995 men and women to evaluate the extent of differential item functioning (DIF) among BPD criteria across sexual orientation groups using a multiple indicators multiple causes approach. All criteria except affective instability and emptiness indicated DIF for at least one sexual minority focal group, although both demonstrated DIF in sensitivity analyses. DIF was most consistently indicated for suicidality, efforts to avoid abandonment, and impulsivity. Contrary to predictions, DIF was mostly nonuniform with greater item discrimination for sexual minority groups compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Finally, all estimated effect sizes were small, suggesting that DIF was not practically meaningful and unlikely to impact the validity of group comparisons for BPD criteria across heterosexual and nonheterosexual men and women. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":" ","pages":"436-445"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An evaluation of measurement invariance of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition borderline personality disorder criteria across heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults.\",\"authors\":\"E Elisa Carsten, Marina Bornovalova, Craig Rodriguez-Seijas\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is a robust, yet poorly understood relationship between nonheterosexual orientation and borderline personality disorder (BPD), with lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals evidencing greater BPD symptoms compared to heterosexual individuals. Recent evidence suggests possible psychometric bias in BPD diagnostic criteria leading to greater endorsement among sexual minority individuals, which hinders researchers' ability to make valid group comparisons. The present study utilized an epidemiological sample of 35,995 men and women to evaluate the extent of differential item functioning (DIF) among BPD criteria across sexual orientation groups using a multiple indicators multiple causes approach. All criteria except affective instability and emptiness indicated DIF for at least one sexual minority focal group, although both demonstrated DIF in sensitivity analyses. DIF was most consistently indicated for suicidality, efforts to avoid abandonment, and impulsivity. Contrary to predictions, DIF was mostly nonuniform with greater item discrimination for sexual minority groups compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Finally, all estimated effect sizes were small, suggesting that DIF was not practically meaningful and unlikely to impact the validity of group comparisons for BPD criteria across heterosexual and nonheterosexual men and women. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"436-445\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"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/per0000696\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000696","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非异性恋倾向与边缘型人格障碍(BPD)之间存在着密切的关系,但这种关系却鲜为人知,与异性恋者相比,女同性恋者、男同性恋者和双性恋者表现出更严重的边缘型人格障碍症状。最近有证据表明,BPD 诊断标准中可能存在心理测量偏差,导致性少数群体更认可该标准,这阻碍了研究人员进行有效的群体比较。本研究利用 35,995 名男性和女性的流行病学样本,采用多指标多原因方法评估了不同性取向群体的 BPD 标准之间的项目功能差异(DIF)程度。除了情感不稳定性和空虚感之外,所有标准都显示至少有一个性取向少数群体的 DIF,尽管在敏感性分析中这两个标准都显示了 DIF。自杀倾向、努力避免被遗弃和冲动是最一致的 DIF 指标。与预测相反,DIF 大多是不均匀的,与异性恋群体相比,性少数群体的项目歧视更大。最后,所有估计的效应大小都很小,表明 DIF 没有实际意义,不太可能影响异性恋和非异性恋男女之间 BPD 标准的群体比较的有效性。(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
An evaluation of measurement invariance of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition borderline personality disorder criteria across heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults.

There is a robust, yet poorly understood relationship between nonheterosexual orientation and borderline personality disorder (BPD), with lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals evidencing greater BPD symptoms compared to heterosexual individuals. Recent evidence suggests possible psychometric bias in BPD diagnostic criteria leading to greater endorsement among sexual minority individuals, which hinders researchers' ability to make valid group comparisons. The present study utilized an epidemiological sample of 35,995 men and women to evaluate the extent of differential item functioning (DIF) among BPD criteria across sexual orientation groups using a multiple indicators multiple causes approach. All criteria except affective instability and emptiness indicated DIF for at least one sexual minority focal group, although both demonstrated DIF in sensitivity analyses. DIF was most consistently indicated for suicidality, efforts to avoid abandonment, and impulsivity. Contrary to predictions, DIF was mostly nonuniform with greater item discrimination for sexual minority groups compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Finally, all estimated effect sizes were small, suggesting that DIF was not practically meaningful and unlikely to impact the validity of group comparisons for BPD criteria across heterosexual and nonheterosexual men and women. (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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An exploratory study on disinhibition and interpersonal outcomes in daily life. The association between minority stressors, intraminority stressors, and borderline personality disorder symptomatology among sexual minority men. Advancing understanding of the relation between criterion a of the alternative model for personality disorders and hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology: Insights from an external validity analysis. Negative affect and pain catastrophizing link borderline personality disorder to pain: Replicating and extending the borderline personality disorder-pain association. First psychometric evaluation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 in adolescents.
×
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