Suppr超能文献

比较《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第五版,从相同的访谈中对人格障碍模型进行评分。

Comparing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorder models scored from the same interview.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh.

Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.

出版信息

Personal Disord. 2024 Sep;15(5):371-378. doi: 10.1037/per0000663. Epub 2024 May 9.

Abstract

The alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) traits were designed to maintain continuity with the Section II personality disorder (PD) diagnoses by retaining the same clinical information. Whether the AMPD traits achieve this is not well established. Prior work testing incremental validity of AMPD traits and Section II diagnoses is limited by the fact each model was measured by a different instrument or rater, making it unclear whether discrepancies are due to the constructs or methods. Here, we compare the incremental validity of AMPD traits versus Section II PDs assessed by the same instrument and rater. Participants ( = 311, 50% received past-year mental health treatment) completed a clinical interview, baseline self-reports, and 14-day ambulatory assessment protocol. Interviewers rated AMPD domains, facets, and Section II criteria from the same interview (Structured Interview for Personality). We used hierarchical regression models to evaluate the variance predicted in 17 clinically relevant cross-sectional and momentary variables by the AMPD traits and Section II PDs. Incremental ² showed that Section II PDs account for little variance in outcomes over and above the AMPD domains/facets, whereas the AMPD facets were generally more predictive of outcomes than the Section II PDs. Results add novel evidence that dimensional PD traits-not a particular assessment method-are equivalent or superior to PD categories for predicting social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

人格障碍的替代模型(AMPD)特质旨在通过保留相同的临床信息,与第二部分人格障碍(PD)诊断保持连续性。AMPD 特质是否能实现这一点还没有得到很好的证实。先前测试 AMPD 特质和第二部分诊断的增量有效性的工作受到每个模型由不同的工具或评估者测量的事实的限制,这使得不清楚差异是由于结构还是方法造成的。在这里,我们比较了由相同的工具和评估者评估的 AMPD 特质与第二部分 PD 的增量有效性。参与者(=311,50%接受了过去一年的心理健康治疗)完成了临床访谈、基线自我报告和 14 天的动态评估方案。访谈者从同一次访谈中对 AMPD 领域、方面和第二部分标准进行了评分(人格的结构访谈)。我们使用分层回归模型来评估 AMPD 特质和第二部分 PD 对 17 个临床相关的横断面和瞬时变量的预测方差。增量²表明,第二部分 PD 对 AMPD 领域/方面之外的结果的解释程度很小,而 AMPD 方面通常比第二部分 PD 更能预测结果。结果为维度性 PD 特质(而不是特定的评估方法)在预测社交、情感和行为功能方面与 PD 类别等效或更优提供了新的证据。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验