Washington University in St. Louis.
Personal Disord. 2013 Oct;4(4):388-9. doi: 10.1037/per0000049.
Comments on the original article by Widiger (see record 2013-45025-016). As Widiger notes, it is important to compare competing systems for the measurement of personality disorders (PD) using empirical data. The current author comments that classification systems are not right or wrong; they are simply more or less useful. What kind of evidence is needed for these comparisons? Clearly the relevant data will cover a wide range of topics, from basic descriptive information to behavior genetics and treatment outcome data. The current author makes three recommendations regarding studies of this sort. First, evidence regarding the presence of personality pathology should come from all sources, not simply self-report instruments. Second, investigators should study community samples as well as samples composed exclusively of patients who are receiving treatment. The third point is that investigators who compare diagnostic models should consider longitudinal evidence collected across all phases of the life span.
对 Widiger（见记录 2013-45025-016）的原文的评论。正如 Widiger 所指出的，使用经验数据比较人格障碍（PD）的竞争测量系统非常重要。作者评论说，分类系统没有对与错；它们只是或多或少有用。这些比较需要什么样的证据？显然，相关数据将涵盖从基本描述性信息到行为遗传学和治疗结果数据的广泛主题。作者对这类研究提出了三项建议。首先，有关人格病理存在的证据应该来自所有来源，而不仅仅是自我报告工具。其次，研究人员应该研究社区样本以及仅由接受治疗的患者组成的样本。第三点是，比较诊断模型的研究人员应该考虑整个生命周期各个阶段收集的纵向证据。
