Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
J Pers Disord. 2019 Dec;33(6):721-S18. doi: 10.1521/pedi_2019_33_362. Epub 2019 Jan 16.
This study examined the interdiagnostician reliability and potential gender bias of the / Section II and Alternative Model definitions of borderline personality disorder. A national sample of 123 mental health professionals provided diagnostic judgments on 12 case vignettes selected to represent a range of personality pathology. Two versions of each case were included, one identified as male and the other as female, but which were otherwise identical. Analyses examined the intraclass correlation between clinicians and also examined rates of diagnostic assignments as a function of case gender. Reliability of diagnosis of borderline personality did not differ across the two diagnostic approaches, and concordance of diagnoses across the two systems was significant. The dimensional components of the Alternative Model demonstrated significantly more diagnostic reliability than the categorical diagnoses. The Alternative Model conceptualization of borderline personality can be diagnosed with comparable or greater reliability than the extant definition.
本研究考察了边缘型人格障碍的/第二部分和替代模型定义的诊断者间可靠性和潜在性别偏见。一个由 123 名心理健康专业人员组成的全国性样本对 12 个案例小插曲进行了诊断判断，这些案例小插曲的选择旨在代表一系列人格病理学。每个案例包括两个版本，一个被识别为男性，另一个被识别为女性，但其他方面完全相同。分析考察了临床医生之间的组内相关系数，并考察了诊断分配率作为案例性别函数的情况。两种诊断方法的边缘型人格诊断的可靠性没有差异，两种系统的诊断一致性是显著的。替代模型的维度成分显示出比分类诊断更高的诊断可靠性。与现有定义相比，替代模型对边缘型人格的概念化可以以相当或更高的可靠性进行诊断。
