Anderson Jaime L, Sellbom Martin, Sansone Randy A, Songer Douglas A
Department of Psychology, University of Alabama.
Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University.
J Pers Disord. 2016 Apr;30(2):193-210. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2015_29_189. Epub 2015 Apr 23.
The current study evaluated the relative associations of the DSM-5 Section II operationalization of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and dimensional traits included in a diagnosis of BPD in DSM-5 Section III with conceptually relevant external criterion variables. It is important to determine whether or not Section II BPD and constellation of Section III BPD traits have similar positions in the nomological network representing the BPD construct. Moreover, it is important to determine whether or not the trait-based Section III BPD diagnosis is an improvement upon the categorical Section II diagnosis in regard to its associations with external criteria. To evaluate this, we used two samples, a patient sample consisting of 145 psychiatric patients and a university sample consisting of 399 undergraduate students. We conducted a series of correlation and regression analyses in order to determine the relative associations of these two diagnostic methodologies with relevant external criteria. Correlation analyses did not favor either model, but indicated that both Section II and Section III BPD have associations with external criterion variables relevant to BPD. The regression analyses tended to favor the trait-based Section III model, supporting the construct validity and use of the trait profile for BPD in DSM-5 Section III. Generally, it was concluded that the Section II and Section III operationalizations have similar positions in a nomological network representing the BPD construct.
本研究评估了《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)第二部分边缘型人格障碍(BPD)的操作性定义以及DSM-5第三部分BPD诊断中所包含的维度特征与概念上相关的外部标准变量之间的相对关联。确定第二部分的BPD和第三部分的BPD特征组合在代表BPD结构的法理网络中是否具有相似的位置很重要。此外,确定基于特征的第三部分BPD诊断在与外部标准的关联方面是否比分类的第二部分诊断有所改进也很重要。为了评估这一点,我们使用了两个样本,一个由145名精神科患者组成的患者样本和一个由399名本科生组成的大学样本。我们进行了一系列相关分析和回归分析,以确定这两种诊断方法与相关外部标准的相对关联。相关分析对两种模型都没有偏好,但表明第二部分和第三部分的BPD都与与BPD相关的外部标准变量有关联。回归分析倾向于支持基于特征的第三部分模型,支持了DSM-5第三部分中BPD特征概况的结构效度和应用。总体而言,得出的结论是,第二部分和第三部分的操作性定义在代表BPD结构的法理网络中具有相似的位置。