Institute of Neuroscience, Hospital Clinic.
Lleida Institute for Biomedical Research Dr. Pifarre Foundation.
Personal Disord. 2023 May;14(3):355-359. doi: 10.1037/per0000592. Epub 2022 Jun 23.
The inclusion of the borderline pattern in the dimensional classification of personality disorders (PDs) has caused controversy. Unease about leaving out these clinically challenging patients seems to conflict with the need of an evidence-based and credible diagnostic system. However, the accommodation of borderline within the new diagnostic system has not yet been studied in depth. To this end, we examine in a sample of 1799 general population and clinical subjects the joint structure of the five initial domains and the borderline pattern. Regression and item-level factor analyses reveal that borderline criteria do not form a separate construct and are indissociable from negative affectivity. Furthermore, borderline adds nothing to the remaining domains when it comes to predict PD severity. The borderline pattern appears as largely superfluous and even misguiding, unless their criteria are properly integrated within the structure of personality pathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
将边缘型模式纳入人格障碍（PD）的多维分类引起了争议。将这些具有临床挑战性的患者排除在外的不安，似乎与需要一个基于证据和可信的诊断系统相冲突。然而，边缘型在新的诊断系统中的纳入尚未得到深入研究。为此，我们在一个包含 1799 名普通人群和临床受试者的样本中，检查了五个初始领域和边缘型模式的联合结构。回归和项目水平的因素分析表明，边缘型标准不能形成一个单独的结构，与负性情感不可分割。此外，当涉及到预测 PD 严重程度时，边缘型标准对其余领域没有任何补充作用。边缘型模式似乎是多余的，甚至是误导性的，除非它们的标准在人格病理学的结构中得到适当的整合。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2023 APA，保留所有权利）。
