Calabrese William R, Emery Leah T, Evans Chloe M, Simms Leonard J
Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Health, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University.
Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo.
Personal Disord. 2024 Sep;15(5):361-370. doi: 10.1037/per0000677. Epub 2024 Jul 29.
Traditional personality disorders (PDs; e.g., ] Section II PDs), as well as dimensional traits (e.g., alternative model for PD [AMPD]), offer unique advantages in personality pathology assessment. However, very little is known about how these systems compare in predicting observable behavior. This study compares self-report ratings of PD symptoms (i.e., Structured Clinical Interview for PD) with self-reports of AMPD traits (i.e., Personality Inventory for -) in predicting clinical outcomes, 1 year later, via three different methods: (a) naturalistically observed psychosocial functioning (i.e., electronically activated recorder [EAR]), (b) informant-reported interpersonal functioning (i.e., Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32), and (c) self-reported suicidality (SI), depression, anxiety, and substance use symptoms (i.e., Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire). Data were analyzed from 72 individuals in current or recent psychiatric treatment meeting diagnosis for at least one PD. Results showed that Section II PD and AMPD ratings yielded meaningful and comparable predictions of naturalistically observed EAR variables and informant-rated interpersonal functioning. The AMPD appeared to offer slight advantages in the prediction of EAR-observed negative affect, hostile words, and informant-rated interpersonal functioning, with clearer advantages at the facet level. Overall, these results provide tentative evidence that both Section II PD and AMPD systems show meaningful links with clinical outcomes measured via multiple methods 1 year later, but with clearer advantages for the AMPD at the facet level. Moreover, results show that the EAR is a viable method for capturing naturalistically observed clinically meaningful, in vivo behavior of individuals exhibiting maladaptive personality patterns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
传统的人格障碍（PDs；例如，《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第二部分中的人格障碍）以及维度特质（例如，人格障碍替代模型[AMPD]）在人格病理学评估中具有独特优势。然而，对于这些系统在预测可观察行为方面的比较情况，我们知之甚少。本研究将人格障碍症状的自我报告评分（即人格障碍结构化临床访谈）与AMPD特质的自我报告（即[具体人格量表名称]人格量表）进行比较，通过三种不同方法预测1年后的临床结果：（a）自然观察到的心理社会功能（即电子激活记录器[EAR]），（b）知情者报告的人际功能（即人际问题清单 - 32），以及（c）自我报告的自杀观念（SI）、抑郁、焦虑和物质使用症状（即精神科诊断筛查问卷）。对72名目前或近期正在接受精神病治疗且至少符合一种人格障碍诊断的个体的数据进行了分析。结果表明，《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第二部分中的人格障碍评分和AMPD评分对自然观察到的EAR变量和知情者评定的人际功能产生了有意义且可比的预测。在预测EAR观察到的消极情绪、敌意言语和知情者评定的人际功能方面，AMPD似乎具有轻微优势，在特质层面优势更明显。总体而言，这些结果提供了初步证据，表明《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第二部分中的人格障碍系统和AMPD系统都与1年后通过多种方法测量的临床结果存在有意义的联系，但在特质层面AMPD具有更明显的优势。此外，结果表明EAR是一种可行的方法，可用于捕捉自然观察到的表现出适应不良人格模式个体的具有临床意义的实际行为。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2024美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
