Tenney Nienke H, Schotte Chris K W, Denys Damiaan A J P, van Megen Harold J G M, Westenberg Herman G M
Department of Psychiatry, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J Pers Disord. 2003 Dec;17(6):550-61. doi: 10.1521/pedi.17.6.550.25352.
In patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder, personality disorders are not many times assessed according to DSM-IV criteria. The purpose of the present study is to examine the prevalence of personality disorders diagnosed according to the DSM-IV in a severely disordered OCD population (n=65) with three different methods of assessing personality disorders (structured interview, questionnaire, and clinical diagnoses). Furthermore, correspondence between these different methods was investigated and their construct validity was examined by relating the three methods to external variables. Each method resulted in a predominance of Cluster C personality disorders, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder had the highest prevalence. However, there was generally low correspondence regarding which patient had which personality disorder. Results concerning the relation of external variables were the most promising for the structured clinical interview.
在强迫症患者中,很少根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第四版》(DSM-IV)标准对人格障碍进行多次评估。本研究的目的是采用三种不同的人格障碍评估方法(结构化访谈、问卷调查和临床诊断),检查在一组严重紊乱的强迫症患者群体(n = 65)中,根据DSM-IV诊断的人格障碍患病率。此外,还研究了这些不同方法之间的一致性,并通过将这三种方法与外部变量相关联来检验它们的结构效度。每种方法都导致C类人格障碍占主导,其中强迫型人格障碍的患病率最高。然而,对于哪些患者患有哪种人格障碍,不同方法之间的一致性普遍较低。关于外部变量关系的结果,结构化临床访谈最具前景。