Kavoussi R J, Coccaro E F, Klar H M, Bernstein D, Siever L J
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York.
Am J Psychiatry. 1990 Nov;147(11):1522-5. doi: 10.1176/ajp.147.11.1522.
The authors compared three instruments used to diagnose borderline personality disorder--the Diagnostic Interview for Borderline Patients (DIB), the Schedule for Interviewing Borderlines, and the Structured Interview for DSM-III Personality Disorders--in 56 patients with personality disorders. A borderline diagnosis was made according to the DIB in 30%, the Structured Interview for DSM-III Personality Disorders in 48%, and the Schedule for Interviewing Borderlines in 55% of the patients. Diagnostic agreement was only 52%, which has implications for the generalizability of results of validation studies of the borderline diagnosis. Improvement in diagnostic agreement requires modification of current criteria sets and/or the use of dimensional models.
作者在56例人格障碍患者中比较了三种用于诊断边缘型人格障碍的工具——边缘型患者诊断访谈(DIB)、边缘型访谈表以及DSM-III人格障碍结构化访谈。依据DIB,30%的患者被诊断为边缘型人格障碍;依据DSM-III人格障碍结构化访谈,这一比例为48%;依据边缘型访谈表,这一比例为55%。诊断一致性仅为52%,这对边缘型人格障碍诊断验证研究结果的普遍性具有影响。提高诊断一致性需要修改当前的标准集和/或使用维度模型。