Yang J, McCrae R R, Costa P T, Yao S, Dai X, Cai T, Gao B
Personality, Stress, and Coping Section, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD 21224-6825, USA.
J Pers Disord. 2000 Fall;14(3):249-63. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2000.14.3.249.
We examined the reliability, cross-instrument validity, and factor structure of Chinese adaptations of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ-4+; N = 1,926) and Personality Disorders Interview (PDI-IV; N = 525) in psychiatric patients. Comparisons with data from Western countries suggest that the psychometric properties of these two instruments are comparable across cultures. Low to modest agreement between the PDQ-4+ and PDI-IV was observed for both dimensional and categorical personality disorder evaluations. When the PDI-IV was used as the diagnostic standard, the PDQ-4+ showed higher sensitivity than specificity, and higher negative predictive power than positive predictive power. Factor analyses of both instruments replicated the four-factor structure O'Connor and Dyce (1998) found in Western samples. Results suggested that conceptions and measures of DSM-IV personality disorders are cross-culturally generalizable to Chinese psychiatric populations.
我们检验了人格诊断问卷(PDQ - 4+;N = 1926)和人格障碍访谈(PDI - IV;N = 525)的中文版在精神科患者中的信度、跨工具效度及因子结构。与西方国家数据的比较表明,这两种工具的心理测量特性在不同文化间具有可比性。在维度和类别性人格障碍评估中,PDQ - 4+与PDI - IV之间的一致性较低到中等。以PDI - IV作为诊断标准时,PDQ - 4+表现出的敏感性高于特异性,阴性预测力高于阳性预测力。两种工具的因子分析都重现了奥康纳和戴斯(1998)在西方样本中发现的四因子结构。结果表明,《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM - IV)人格障碍的概念和测量方法在跨文化情境下可推广至中国精神科人群。