Department of Clinical Psychological Science, University of Maastricht, NL-6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J Pers Disord. 2009 Dec;23(6):606-28. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2009.23.6.606.
Despite a lively debate about the dimensional vs. categorical nature of Personality Disorders (PDs), direct empirical tests of the underlying structure are missing for most PDs. Taxometrics can be used to investigate whether latent structures are categorical or dimensional. We investigated the latent structure underlying Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive, Depressive, Paranoid, and Borderline PD by means of three types of taxometric analyses. SCID-II based DSM-IV PD criterion scores from 1,816 patients from Mental Health and Forensic Institutes, and 63 nonpatients, were analyzed with three types of taxometric analyses. MAMBAC, MAXEIG, and L-MODE taxometric analyses were applied on multiple criteria sets, constituted both on theoretical grounds and randomly. Assumptions for taxometric analyses were generally met. All but two of the 78 taxometric analyses indicated greater evidence for a latent dimensional structure, with better fit of empirical data to dimensional than to taxonic simulations; mean Comparative Curve Fit Index (CCFI) = .23, SD = .09. Only two analyses yielded ambiguous evidence (CCFI in the .40-.60 range) and none indicated taxonic structure.
尽管关于人格障碍(PD)的维度与类别性质存在激烈争论,但大多数 PD 的潜在结构仍缺乏直接的实证检验。分类测量学可用于研究潜在结构是类别还是维度。我们通过三种分类测量分析方法,研究了回避型、依赖型、强迫型、抑郁型、偏执型和边缘型 PD 的潜在结构。对来自心理健康和法医机构的 1816 名患者和 63 名非患者的基于 SCID-II 的 DSM-IV PD 标准评分进行了三种分类测量分析。MAMBAC、MAXEIG 和 L-MODE 分类测量分析应用于多种标准集,这些标准集既是基于理论基础,也是随机构成的。分类测量分析的假设通常得到满足。除了两个分析外,其余 78 个分析都表明,潜在的维度结构有更多的证据,实证数据与维度模拟的拟合程度优于分类模拟;平均比较曲线拟合指数(CCFI)=.23,标准差(SD)=.09。只有两个分析得出了模棱两可的证据(CCFI 在.40-.60 范围内),没有一个分析表明存在分类结构。