Washington State University, USA.
J Pers Disord. 2010 Jun;24(3):377-91. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2010.24.3.377.
The Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R; Zanarini, Gunderson, Frankenburg, & Chauncey, 1989) measures four major aspects of borderline personality disorder (BPD): Affect, Cognition, Impulse Action Patterns, and Interpersonal Relationships. In the present study, 353 young adults completed the DIB-R at age 18 (Wave 1) and again two years later (Wave 2) at age 20. Concerning the prediction of future BPD features, three models were compared: (a) Wave 1 Affect scores predicting all Wave 2 BPD features (NA model); (b) Wave 1 Impulse Action Patterns scores predicting all Wave 2 BPD features (IMP model); and (c) both Wave 1 Affect and Impulse Action Patterns scores predicting all Wave 2 BPD features (NA-IMP model). Each model controlled for stabilities over time and within-time covariances. Results indicated that the NA model provided the best fit to the data, and improved model fit over a baseline stabilities model and the other models tested. However, even within the NA model there was some evidence that the impulsivity scores were not accounted for by other BPD features. These results suggest that although negative affect is predictive of most BPD symptoms, it does not fully predict future impulsive behavior.
修订后的边缘性诊断访谈 (DIB-R; Zanarini、Gunderson、Frankenburg 和 Chauncey, 1989) 测量了边缘性人格障碍 (BPD) 的四个主要方面: 情感、认知、冲动行为模式和人际关系。在本研究中,353 名年轻人在 18 岁时 (第 1 波) 完成了 DIB-R,两年后即 20 岁时 (第 2 波) 再次完成。关于对未来 BPD 特征的预测,比较了三个模型:(a) 第 1 波情感得分预测所有第 2 波 BPD 特征 (NA 模型);(b) 第 1 波冲动行为模式得分预测所有第 2 波 BPD 特征 (IMP 模型);和 (c) 第 1 波情感和冲动行为模式得分预测所有第 2 波 BPD 特征 (NA-IMP 模型)。每个模型都控制了随时间和同期协方差的稳定性。结果表明,NA 模型最符合数据,并且比基线稳定性模型和其他测试模型的拟合度更好。然而,即使在 NA 模型中,也有一些证据表明冲动得分不能由其他 BPD 特征来解释。这些结果表明,尽管负性情绪可以预测大多数 BPD 症状,但它并不能完全预测未来的冲动行为。