VA Connecticut Health Care-151D, 950 Campbell Avenue, West Haven, CT 06516, USA.
J Pers Disord. 2010 Dec;24(6):721-45. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2010.24.6.721.
The current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) defines personality disorders as categorical entities that are distinct from each other and from normal personality traits. However, many scientists now believe that personality disorders are best conceptualized using a dimensional model of traits that span normal and abnormal personality, such as the Five-Factor Model (FFM). However, if the FFM or any dimensional model is to be considered as a credible alternative to the current model, it must first demonstrate an increment in the validity of the assessment offered within a clinical setting. Thus, the current study extended previous research by comparing the convergent and discriminant validity of the current DSM-IV-TR model to the FFM across four assessment methodologies. Eighty-eight individuals receiving ongoing psychotherapy were assessed for the FFM and the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders using self-report, informant report, structured interview, and therapist ratings. The results indicated that the FFM had an appreciable advantage over the DSM-IV-TR in terms of discriminant validity and, at the domain level, convergent validity. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.
当前版本的《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》（DSM-IV-TR；美国精神病学协会，2000 年）将人格障碍定义为彼此不同且与正常人格特征不同的分类实体。然而，许多科学家现在认为，人格障碍最好使用涵盖正常和异常人格的特质维度模型来概念化，例如五因素模型（FFM）。但是，如果 FFM 或任何维度模型要被视为当前模型的可信替代方案，它必须首先在临床环境中提供的评估中证明其有效性有所提高。因此，本研究通过比较四种评估方法，扩展了先前的研究，比较了当前 DSM-IV-TR 模型与 FFM 的收敛和判别有效性。对正在接受持续心理治疗的 88 人使用自我报告、知情者报告、结构化访谈和治疗师评分评估 FFM 和 DSM-IV-TR 人格障碍。结果表明，FFM 在判别有效性方面明显优于 DSM-IV-TR，并且在域级别上具有收敛有效性。讨论了研究结果的意义和未来研究的方向。
