Walters Paul, Moran Paul, Choudhury Partha, Lee Tennyson, Mann Anthony
Health Services Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK.
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2004;13(1):34-9. doi: 10.1002/mpr.162.
The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (SCID-II Version 2.0) is becoming the most favoured instrument to measure personality disorder but takes up to an hour to complete. The Standardized Assessment of Personality (SAP), an informant-based measure, takes 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Both instruments have been validated independently. This study aimed to determine whether the SAP is a suitable screening instrument for personality disorder as measured by the SCID-II. Fifty-seven psychiatric patients were assessed for personality disorder using both the SAP and the SCID-II. The SAP assessments were conducted blind to the results of the SCID-II assessments. Agreement between the two instruments in this population was low (kappa = 0.3). The level of agreement differed between personality disorder categories, ranging from kappa = 0.4 (antisocial) to 0.1 (narcissistic). In this population of patients, the SAP proved to be a poor screen for the SCID-II. The study highlights the discrepancy between informant and self-report assessments for personality disorder.
《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版人格障碍结构化临床访谈(SCID-II第2.0版)正成为测量人格障碍最受青睐的工具,但完成该访谈需要长达一小时的时间。基于信息提供者的测量工具“人格标准化评估”(SAP)则需要10至15分钟来完成。这两种工具均已独立验证。本研究旨在确定SAP是否是一种适用于以SCID-II测量人格障碍的筛查工具。使用SAP和SCID-II对57名精神科患者进行了人格障碍评估。SAP评估在对SCID-II评估结果不知情的情况下进行。这两种工具在该人群中的一致性较低(kappa = 0.3)。不同人格障碍类别之间的一致性水平有所不同,范围从kappa = 0.4(反社会型)到0.1(自恋型)。在这群患者中,SAP被证明是SCID-II的一种较差的筛查工具。该研究凸显了人格障碍信息提供者评估与自我报告评估之间的差异。