Ulvestad Dag Anders, Johansen Merete Selsbakk, Kvarstein Elfrida Hartveit, Pedersen Geir, Wilberg Theresa
Outpatient Clinic for Specialized Treatment of Personality Disorders, Section for Personality Psychiatry and Specialized Treatments, Department for National and Regional Functions, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Oslo, Norway.
Front Psychiatry. 2024 Jun 21;15:1380532. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1380532. eCollection 2024.
Mentalizing difficulties are central to borderline personality disorder (BPD), have severe consequences, and are an explicit focus in mentalization-based treatment. The significance of mentalizing capacity as a predictor or mediator of change is however still uncertain due to a scarcity of research. The Mentalization Breakdown Interview (MBI) was developed as a time saving tool for studying psychotherapy processes and outcome in borderline pathology. This study aimed to investigate the convergent validity of reflective functioning (RF) ratings based on the MBI (MBI-RF) by a comparison with the gold standard, i.e., RF assessments based on the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI-RF). A secondary aim was to investigate how MBI-RF relates to core symptoms of BPD, levels of functional impairment and symptom distress compared with AAI-RF.
Forty-five patients with BPD or significant BPD traits were included. MBI-RF and AAI-RF were rated using the Reflective Functioning Scale. Levels of MBI-RF and AAI-RF and the correlation between the measures were calculated, as well as their associations with the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, Levels of Personality Functioning-Brief Form 2.0, Work and Social Adjustment Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, self-harm, suicide attempts, and PD diagnostics.
The correlation between MBI-RF and AAI-RF was 0.79 (<0.01), indicating high convergent validity. There were few significant associations between MBI-RF and AAI-RF and clinical measures.
The study provides support for the convergent validity of the MBI as a BPD-focused RF assessment method. The MBI has the potential as a time saving, reliable and valid method to be applied in treatment research on patients with borderline pathology. The results indicate that measures of MBI-RF and AAI-RF are different from clinical symptoms.
ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04157907.
心理化困难是边缘型人格障碍（BPD）的核心问题，具有严重后果，也是基于心理化的治疗的明确重点。然而，由于研究匮乏，心理化能力作为改变的预测因素或中介因素的重要性仍不确定。心理化崩溃访谈（MBI）是作为一种节省时间的工具而开发的，用于研究边缘型病理中的心理治疗过程和结果。本研究旨在通过与金标准（即基于成人依恋访谈的反思功能评估（AAI-RF））进行比较，调查基于MBI的反思功能（RF）评分（MBI-RF）的收敛效度。第二个目的是研究与AAI-RF相比，MBI-RF如何与BPD的核心症状、功能损害水平和症状困扰相关。
纳入45例患有BPD或具有显著BPD特征的患者。使用反思功能量表对MBI-RF和AAI-RF进行评分。计算MBI-RF和AAI-RF的水平以及测量之间的相关性，以及它们与情绪调节困难量表、人格功能水平简表2.0、工作和社会适应量表、患者健康问卷、抑郁、广泛性焦虑症-7、自我伤害、自杀未遂和PD诊断的关联。
MBI-RF与AAI-RF之间的相关性为0.79（<0.01），表明收敛效度高。MBI-RF与AAI-RF和临床测量之间几乎没有显著关联。
该研究为MBI作为一种以BPD为重点的RF评估方法的收敛效度提供了支持。MBI有潜力作为一种节省时间、可靠且有效的方法应用于边缘型病理患者的治疗研究。结果表明，MBI-RF和AAI-RF的测量与临床症状不同。
ClinicalTrials.gov标识符NCT04157907。
