Skodol Andrew E, Oldham John M, Bender Donna S, Dyck Ingrid R, Stout Robert L, Morey Leslie C, Shea M Tracie, Zanarini Mary C, Sanislow Charles A, Grilo Carlos M, McGlashan Thomas H, Gunderson John G
New York State Psychiatric Institute, Box 129, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Oct;162(10):1919-25. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.10.1919.
This study compared three-dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders and standard categories with respect to their associations with psychosocial functioning.
Six hundred sixty-eight patients with semistructured interview diagnoses of schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, or obsessive-compulsive personality disorders or with major depressive disorder and no personality disorder completed questionnaires assessing three-factor and five-factor dimensional models of personality. Personality disorder categories, dimensional representations of the categories based on criteria counts, and three- and five-factor personality dimensions were compared on their relationships to impairment in seven domains of functioning, as measured by the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation-Baseline Version.
Both the categorical and dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders had stronger relationships to impairment in functioning in the domains of employment, social relationships with parents and friends, and global social adjustment and to DSM-IV axis V ratings than the three- and five-factor models. DSM-IV dimensions predicted functional impairment best of the four approaches. Although five-factor personality traits captured variance in functional impairment not predicted by DSM-IV personality disorder dimensions, the DSM-IV dimensions accounted for significantly more variance than the measures of personality.
Scores on dimensions of general personality functioning do not appear to be as strongly associated with functional impairment as the psychopathology of DSM personality disorder. A compromise in the ongoing debate over categories versus dimensions of personality disorder might be the dimensional rating of the criteria that comprise traditional categories.
本研究比较了《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)人格障碍的三维表征和标准类别与心理社会功能之间的关联。
668名患者完成了问卷调查,这些患者经半结构化访谈被诊断为分裂型、边缘型、回避型或强迫型人格障碍,或患有重度抑郁症且无人格障碍。问卷评估了人格的三因素和五因素维度模型。比较了人格障碍类别、基于标准计数的类别维度表征以及三因素和五因素人格维度与七个功能领域损害之间的关系,功能损害由纵向间隔随访评估-基线版本进行测量。
与三因素和五因素模型相比,DSM-IV人格障碍的类别表征和维度表征与就业、与父母及朋友的社会关系、总体社会适应等领域的功能损害以及DSM-IV轴V评分之间的关系更强。在这四种方法中,DSM-IV维度对功能损害的预测效果最佳。虽然五因素人格特质能够捕捉到DSM-IV人格障碍维度未预测到的功能损害方差,但DSM-IV维度所解释的方差显著多于人格测量指标。
一般人格功能维度上的得分与功能损害的关联似乎不如DSM人格障碍的精神病理学那么紧密。在关于人格障碍类别与维度的持续争论中,一种折中的办法可能是对构成传统类别的标准进行维度评分。