Personality and Psychopathology Research Group (PEPS), Department of Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Clinical Centre of Excellence for Older Adults with Personality Disorders, Mondriaan Mental Health Centre, Heerlen-Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2024 Mar;39(3):e6075. doi: 10.1002/gps.6075.
The contested categorical personality disorder (PD) criteria are not well suited to inform PD diagnoses in older adults. Yet, the classification of PDs is undergoing a critical transition phase with a paradigm shift to a dimensional approach for diagnosing PDs. No special attention was given to the expression of PDs in older age when the dimensional ICD-11 model was developed. Given that PDs are highly prevalent in older adults, there is an urgent need to examine if ICD-11 related instruments are able to adequately assess for PDs in older adults.
The age-neutrality of ICD-11 measures was examined in a sample of 208 Dutch community-dwelling adults (N = 208, M age = 54.96, SD = 21.65), matched on sex into 104 younger (age range 18-64) and 104 older (age range 65-93) adults. An instrument is considered not to be age-neutral if a collective large level of differential item functioning (DIF) exists in a group of items of an instrument (i.e., 25% or more with DIF). We therefore set out to detect possible DIF in the following ICD-11 self-report measures: the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD), the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), and the Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS).
DIF analyses using a non-parametric odds ratio approach demonstrated that SASPD, PiCD, and BPS were age-neutral with less than 25% of items showing DIF. Yet, impact of DIF at scale level, examined by way of differential test functioning (DTF), indicated a DTF effect on the SASPD total score.
These results of age-neutrality of the PiCD and BPS are promising for measuring ICD-11 traits and the borderline pattern. Yet, the age-neutral measurement of PD severity requires further research. With a rapidly aging population, its accurate assessment across the entire adult life span, including older age, is a prerequisite for an adequate detection of PDs.
有争议的特质性人格障碍(PD)诊断标准并不适合为老年人提供 PD 诊断。然而,PD 的分类正在经历一个关键的转型阶段,从诊断 PD 的分类方法向维度方法转变。在制定 ICD-11 维度模型时,并没有特别关注 PD 在老年时的表现。鉴于 PD 在老年人中非常普遍,迫切需要研究 ICD-11 相关工具是否能够在老年人中充分评估 PD。
在一个由 208 名荷兰社区居住成年人组成的样本中(N=208,M 年龄=54.96,SD=21.65),按性别匹配 104 名年轻(年龄范围 18-64 岁)和 104 名年长(年龄范围 65-93 岁)成年人,检查 ICD-11 测量工具的年龄中立性。如果一个工具的一组项目中存在大量的差异项目功能(DIF),则认为该工具不是年龄中立的(即,25%或更多的项目具有 DIF)。因此,我们旨在检测以下 ICD-11 自我报告测量工具中可能存在的 DIF:人格障碍严重程度标准化评定量表(SASPD)、人格障碍检查表(PiCD)和边缘型模式量表(BPS)。
使用非参数比值比方法进行 DIF 分析表明,SASPD、PiCD 和 BPS 具有年龄中立性,不到 25%的项目显示出 DIF。然而,通过差异测试功能(DTF)来检查量表水平的 DIF 影响,表明 SASPD 总分存在 DTF 效应。
这些 PiCD 和 BPS 的年龄中立性结果对于测量 ICD-11 特征和边缘型模式是有希望的。然而,PD 严重程度的年龄中立测量需要进一步研究。随着人口的快速老龄化,在整个成年期,包括老年期,准确评估 PD 是充分发现 PD 的前提。