Fossati Andrea, Somma Antonella, Borroni Serena, Maffei Cesare, Markon Kristian E, Krueger Robert F
LUMSA University, Rome, and San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
J Pers Disord. 2016 Feb;30(1):82-94. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2015_29_184.
In order to evaluate if measures of DSM-5 Alternative PD Model domains predicted interview-based scores of general personality pathology when compared to self-report measures of DSM-IV Axis II/DSM-5 Section II PD criteria, 300 Italian community adults were administered the Iowa Personality Disorder Screen (IPDS) interview, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), and the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+). Multiple regression analyses showed that the five PID-5 domain scales collectively explained an adequate rate of the variance of the IPDS interview total score. This result was slightly lower than the amount of variance in the IPDS total score explained by the 10 PDQ-4+ scales. The PID-5 traits scales performed better than the PDQ-4+, although the difference was marginal. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the PID-5 domain and trait scales provided a moderate, but significant increase in the prediction of the general level of personality pathology above and beyond the PDQ-4+ scales.
为了评估与DSM-IV轴II/DSM-5第二部分人格障碍标准的自我报告测量相比,DSM-5替代人格障碍模型领域的测量是否能预测基于访谈的一般人格病理学评分,对300名意大利社区成年人进行了爱荷华人格障碍筛查(IPDS)访谈、DSM-5人格问卷(PID-5)和人格诊断问卷-4+(PDQ-4+)。多元回归分析表明,五个PID-5领域量表共同解释了IPDS访谈总分方差的适当比例。这一结果略低于由10个PDQ-4+量表解释的IPDS总分方差量。PID-5特质量表的表现优于PDQ-4+,尽管差异不大。分层回归分析表明,PID-5领域和特质量表在预测一般人格病理学水平方面,在PDQ-4+量表之外提供了适度但显著的增加。