当前位置: X-MOL 学术Psychological Assessment › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Discriminant validity of the alternative model of personality disorder.
Psychological Assessment ( IF 3.3 ) Pub Date : 2020-09-24 , DOI: 10.1037/pas0000955
Gillian A. McCabe , Thomas A. Widiger

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-5 Section III alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD) was developed to rectify some of the failings of the DSM-IV personality disorders, including a lack of compelling discriminant validity. The primary purpose of the current study was to provide a direct comparison of DSM-IV with DSM-5 Section III AMPD with respect to discriminant validity in a sample of 302 community members from the United States who were currently receiving or had received mental health treatment. The AMPD Criterion A, level of personality functioning, was assessed by the Section III Criterion A impairment scales (Anderson & Sellbom, 2018). AMPD Criterion B, the five-domain pathological trait model, was assessed by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). Also included was the cross-cutting Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report (Morey, 2017). DSM-IV personality disorders were assessed by the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (Hyler, 1994) and the Multi-Source Assessment of Personality Pathology (Oltmanns & Turkheimer, 2006). Results demonstrate no substantive improvement in discriminant validity in the AMPD compared to the DSM-IV. Implications of these findings for the conceptualization and assessment of personality disorders are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译:

判别人格障碍模型的有效性。

《精神疾病诊断和统计手册》(DSM)-5第三部分人格障碍模型(AMPD)已开发,以纠正DSM-IV人格障碍的某些缺陷,包括缺乏令人信服的判别效度。本研究的主要目的是提供DSM-IV与DSM-5第三部分AMPD的直接比较,以从目前正在接受或已接受心理健康治疗的美国302名社区成员的样本中判别有效性。AMPD标准A,即人格功能水平,由第三节标准A障碍量表(Anderson&Sellbom,2018)进行了评估。AMPD标准B是五域病理特征模型,由DSM-5的性格量表(Krueger,Derringer,Markon,Watson和Skodol,2012)。还包括跨部门的人格功能量表-自测水平报告(莫雷,2017年)。DSM-IV人格障碍由人格诊断问卷4(Hyler,1994)和人格病理的多源评估(Oltmanns&Turkheimer,2006)进行评估。结果表明,与DSM-IV相比,AMPD的判别有效性没有实质性改善。讨论了这些发现对人格障碍的概念化和评估的意义。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。1994年)和人格病理的多源评估(Oltmanns&Turkheimer,2006年)。结果表明,与DSM-IV相比,AMPD的判别有效性没有实质性改善。讨论了这些发现对人格障碍的概念化和评估的意义。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。1994年)和人格病理的多源评估(Oltmanns&Turkheimer,2006年)。结果表明,与DSM-IV相比,AMPD的判别有效性没有实质性改善。讨论了这些发现对人格障碍的概念化和评估的意义。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2020 APA,保留所有权利)。
更新日期:2020-09-24
down
wechat
bug