Samuel Douglas B, Bucher Meredith A
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University.
Personal Disord. 2017 Apr;8(2):104-112. doi: 10.1037/per0000190.
The use of knowledgeable informants is a particularly valuable tool for the diagnosis and assessment of personality disorder (PD). This review details the use of one particular type of informant-practicing clinicians-in PD research. We detail a wide variety of studies that have employed clinicians as an assessment source, including those focused on interrater agreement, comparative validity with other methods, cognitive factors of diagnosis, and opinion surveys. We demonstrate limitations, such as potential biases and limited convergent validity, which caution against the assumption that clinicians' ratings should be considered a gold-standard. Nonetheless, we also highlight the potential value of research that focuses on clinicians due to its external validity to real-world practice settings. Finally, we outline several issues to consider when sampling clinicians, such as participation rate and sample size, and call for future research that collects ratings from clinicians using systematic, well-validated measures. (PsycINFO Database Record
使用知识渊博的信息提供者是诊断和评估人格障碍(PD)的一项特别有价值的工具。本综述详细介绍了一种特定类型的信息提供者——执业临床医生——在PD研究中的使用情况。我们详细阐述了各种各样将临床医生作为评估来源的研究,包括那些关注评分者间一致性、与其他方法的比较效度、诊断的认知因素以及意见调查的研究。我们展示了一些局限性,比如潜在偏差和有限的聚合效度,这警示我们不要假定临床医生的评分应被视为金标准。尽管如此,我们也强调了聚焦于临床医生的研究的潜在价值,因为其对现实世界实践环境具有外部效度。最后,我们概述了在对临床医生进行抽样时需要考虑的几个问题,比如参与率和样本量,并呼吁未来开展研究,使用系统的、经过充分验证的测量方法收集临床医生的评分。(PsycINFO数据库记录)