Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Psychopathology. 2010;43(2):110-20. doi: 10.1159/000277000. Epub 2010 Jan 23.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: There is growing evidence that the validity of diagnostic methods for personality disorders (PD) may be insufficient. Although the ICD-10 classification system is widely used, there is little data concerning its validity for diagnosing PD.
To examine convergent and discriminant validity of ICD-10 PD, corresponding dimensions were calculated using the Inventory of Clinical Personality Accentuations (self-rating) and the International Personality Disorder Examination ICD-10 module (interview and screening questionnaire). These were administered to 42 psychiatric patients. A multitrait-multimethod analysis of the 2 self-administered questionnaires and the structured interview was conducted.
Correspondence between methods is significant at the level of 0.01 for the schizoid, borderline, anankastic, anxious and dependent PD dimensions. The investigation of discriminant validity within and between instruments reveals several strong relationships between different PD dimensions.
Convergent validity can be considered sufficient for 5 of the 9 examined PD dimensions. Non-convergence must partly be interpreted as caused by poor discriminant validity inherent in the ICD-10 classification. Conceptualization of PD as completely distinguishable entities may not reflect the clinical reality of a partial overlap between personality disorders.
背景/目的：越来越多的证据表明，人格障碍（PD）诊断方法的有效性可能不足。尽管 ICD-10 分类系统被广泛应用，但关于其诊断 PD 的有效性的数据却很少。
为了检验 ICD-10 PD 的收敛和判别效度，使用临床人格特质量表（自评）和国际人格障碍检查 ICD-10 模块（访谈和筛查问卷）计算相应的维度。这些问卷被用于 42 名精神科患者。对 2 种自评问卷和结构化访谈进行多特质-多方法分析。
在 0.01 水平上，分裂型、边缘型、强迫型、焦虑型和依赖型 PD 维度的方法之间存在显著的对应关系。在仪器内部和仪器之间进行的判别效度研究揭示了不同 PD 维度之间的几个强关系。
对于所检查的 9 个 PD 维度中的 5 个，收敛效度可以被认为是足够的。不收敛部分必须被解释为 ICD-10 分类固有的判别效度不足所致。将 PD 概念化为完全可区分的实体可能无法反映人格障碍之间部分重叠的临床现实。
