Suppr超能文献

《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版(DSM-III)及第三版修订本(DSM-III-R)中边缘型人格障碍标准集的表面效度。

The face validity of the DSM-III and DSM-III-R criteria sets for borderline personality disorder.

作者信息

Zanarini M C, Gunderson J G, Frankenburg F R, Chauncey D L, Glutting J H

机构信息

Psychosocial Research Program, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA 02178.

出版信息

Am J Psychiatry. 1991 Jul;148(7):870-4. doi: 10.1176/ajp.148.7.870.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to determine the congruence between DSM-III and DSM-III-R diagnoses of borderline personality disorder derived through the use of semistructured research interviews or given by experienced clinicians after lengthy consultations with an interdisciplinary team.

METHOD

The presence of the DSM-III and DSM-III-R criteria sets for borderline personality disorder was assessed in a study group of 253 patients with personality disorders (148 inpatients and 105 outpatients) by raters who were blind to clinical diagnoses and who used information from two semistructured interviews of proven reliability. These diagnoses were then compared with "longitudinal expert all data" (LEAD) standard clinical diagnoses provided by therapists specifically asked to base their diagnoses on DSM criteria.

RESULTS

Both criteria sets were found to be overinclusive when compared with the LEAD standard. Most criteria were also found to lack specificity. However, the three DSM-III-R criteria that are new or revisions of DSM-III criteria were found to be more specific, and raising the cutoff on the DSM-III-R criteria from five to six improved specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the DSM-III and DSM-III-R criteria sets for borderline personality disorder as assessed by semistructured interview lack face validity because they are nonspecific when compared with a rigorous but representative clinical standard, and the results of studies using these criteria sets may prove misleading to researchers and clinicians because they seem to define a nonspecific type of serious character pathology.

摘要

目的

本研究的主要目的是确定通过使用半结构化研究访谈得出的或由经验丰富的临床医生在与跨学科团队进行长时间会诊后给出的DSM-III和DSM-III-R对边缘型人格障碍的诊断之间的一致性。

方法

在一个由253名人格障碍患者(148名住院患者和105名门诊患者)组成的研究组中,由对临床诊断不知情且使用来自两次经证实具有可靠性的半结构化访谈信息的评估者,评估DSM-III和DSM-III-R边缘型人格障碍标准集的存在情况。然后将这些诊断与专门要求治疗师根据DSM标准做出诊断的“纵向专家所有数据”(LEAD)标准临床诊断进行比较。

结果

与LEAD标准相比,发现这两个标准集都包含过多内容。还发现大多数标准缺乏特异性。然而,发现DSM-III-R中作为DSM-III标准的新内容或修订内容的三个标准更具特异性,并且将DSM-III-R标准的临界值从五个提高到六个可提高特异性。

结论

通过半结构化访谈评估的DSM-III和DSM-III-R边缘型人格障碍标准集都缺乏表面效度,因为与严格但具有代表性的临床标准相比它们缺乏特异性,并且使用这些标准集的研究结果可能会对研究人员和临床医生产生误导,因为它们似乎定义了一种非特异性的严重性格病理学类型。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验