Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh.
Personal Disord. 2022 Jul;13(4):402-406. doi: 10.1037/per0000563.
In the 10 years following the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), studies have accumulated testing the validity and utility of the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) in the context of borderline personality disorder (BPD). In this article, we review the studies that have tested how well the AMPD conceptualization of BPD captures the traditional (DSM-5, Section II) conceptualization of BPD. Although we note that studies that measure the full conceptualization of the AMPD-BPD are limited compared with studies focusing on a single aspect of the AMPD, studies reviewed suggest that the AMPD conceptualization of BPD largely overlaps with Section II, is associated with a similar range of external constructs, and can be measured with similar levels of interrater reliability. This evidence is promising in terms of the goal of the AMPD developers to not lose relevant and clinically meaningful information associated with traditional conceptualizations of BPD. However, further applied research is needed to understand how the AMPD may improve upon our existing categorical conceptualization of BPD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
在《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)出版后的 10 年中,已经积累了大量研究来测试人格障碍替代模型(AMPD)在边缘型人格障碍(BPD)背景下的有效性和实用性。在本文中,我们回顾了那些测试 AMPD 对 BPD 的概念化如何捕捉传统(DSM-5,第二部分)对 BPD 的概念化的研究。尽管我们注意到,与专注于 AMPD 单一方面的研究相比,衡量 AMPD-BPD 完整概念化的研究有限,但综述的研究表明,BPD 的 AMPD 概念化在很大程度上与第二部分重叠,与类似范围的外部结构相关,并且可以用类似的评分者间信度进行测量。就 AMPD 开发人员的目标而言,这一证据是有希望的,即不失去与 BPD 的传统概念化相关的相关和具有临床意义的信息。然而,需要进一步的应用研究来了解 AMPD 如何改进我们现有的 BPD 分类概念化。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。