De Viersprong Institute for Studies on Personality Disorders.
Personal Disord. 2024 Mar;15(2):101-109. doi: 10.1037/per0000637. Epub 2023 Aug 3.
The present study investigated the predictive validity of Criterion A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) compared to the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) model in predicting patient outcomes 1 year after initial assessment, in a hetero-method longitudinal design. A clinical sample of 84 participants were administered both traditional Section II and AMPD interviews by two independent interviewers. One year after assessment, disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) and symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory) were assessed. The Section II PD model did not predict disability (² = .01) nor symptom severity (² = .03). The AMPD model, on the other hand, predicted both disability (² = .23) and symptom severity (² = .29) 1-year postinitial assessment. Both Criterion A and B were significant predictors, but when jointly combined only Criterion A remained significantly predictive of both disability and symptom severity while Criterion B did not. Criterion A thus appears to capture core vulnerabilities of personality-disordered patients that are related to future functioning and symptom severity. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
本研究采用横断前瞻性设计,调查了替代人格障碍模型(AMPD)标准 A 和 B 对 DSM-5 第二部分人格障碍(PD)模型在预测初始评估后 1 年患者结局的预测效度,研究对象为 84 名临床样本,由两名独立的访谈者进行了传统的第二部分和 AMPD 访谈。评估后 1 年,评估残疾(世界卫生组织残疾评估量表 2.0)和症状严重程度(简明症状量表)。第二部分 PD 模型不能预测残疾(² =.01)也不能预测症状严重程度(² =.03)。另一方面,AMPD 模型预测了残疾(² =.23)和症状严重程度(² =.29)在初始评估后 1 年。标准 A 和 B 都是显著的预测因素,但当联合起来时,只有标准 A 仍然显著预测残疾和症状严重程度,而标准 B 则没有。因此,标准 A 似乎捕捉到了与未来功能和症状严重程度相关的人格障碍患者的核心脆弱性。讨论了对临床实践的影响。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2024 APA,保留所有权利)。