Gritti Emanuela S, Pietro De Carli, Hutsebaut Joost, Simonelli Alessandra, Zimmermann Johannes
Department of Humanistic Studies, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy.
Department of Psychology, Milano-Bicocca University, Piazza Dell'Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milan, 20126, Italy.
Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 2025 May 12;12(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s40479-025-00286-3.
Contemporary models of personality assessment emphasize a dimensional rather than a categorical framework for measuring an individual's level of personality functioning. This viewpoint has also been incorporated into official diagnostic manuals, such as the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Assessment instruments for personality functioning according to the AMPD are increasingly being developed and used, but controversies remain regarding the two-factor (vs. one-factor) structure and psychometric properties of such instruments in different countries.
To help fill these gaps in the literature, in this study we tested the internal structure, temporal stability, and construct validity of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0), a convenient self-report screening questionnaire of the AMPD level of personality functioning, on a final sample of 482 non-clinical adults (369 females, 112 males, one non-binary; age range = 18-83, M = 34.6, SD = 16.4). Internal structure of the Italian LPFS-BF 2.0 was tested by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Temporal stability and construct validity of the total score and of the Self and Interpersonal functioning subscale scores were tested using Pearson's correlations and Steiger's Test.
A two-factor structure for the LPFS-BF 2.0 was supported, and correlation analyses provided convergent and discriminant validity evidence for the total and the two Self and Interpersonal subscale scores against external self-report measures of problematic self and interpersonal functioning, overall personality dysfunction, general psychological symptoms and lower quality of life. As such, the total score and the two Self and Interpersonal subscales yielded correlations with external criteria of medium to large effect sizes (i.e., Pearson's r), all significant at the p < .001 level. Finally, the present study provides the first empirical assessment of the LPFS-BF 2.0 temporal stability over an interval of 11.5 weeks, demonstrating a high temporal stability for both the total scale and the two subscales (rs above .70 for all three, ps < .001).
The Italian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 yielded similar psychometric properties to the original scale and other international adaptations, suggesting its utility for personality assessment research and practice.
当代人格评估模型强调采用维度而非类别框架来衡量个体的人格功能水平。这一观点也已被纳入官方诊断手册，如《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版人格障碍替代模型（AMPD）。根据AMPD开发和使用的人格功能评估工具越来越多，但对于这些工具在不同国家的双因素（与单因素）结构及心理测量特性仍存在争议。
为填补文献中的这些空白，在本研究中，我们对482名非临床成年人（369名女性、112名男性、1名非二元性别；年龄范围 = 18 - 83岁，M = 34.6，SD = 16.4）的最终样本，测试了人格功能水平量表简版2.0（LPFS - BF 2.0）的内部结构、时间稳定性和结构效度。LPFS - BF 2.意大利版的内部结构通过验证性因素分析进行测试。总分以及自我和人际功能子量表分数的时间稳定性和结构效度使用皮尔逊相关系数和施泰格检验进行测试。
支持LPFS - BF 2.0的双因素结构，相关分析为总分以及自我和人际两个子量表分数提供了聚合效度和区分效度证据，这些分数与有问题的自我和人际功能、总体人格功能障碍、一般心理症状及较低生活质量的外部自我报告测量指标相关。因此，总分以及自我和人际两个子量表与外部标准产生了中等到大效应量（即皮尔逊相关系数r）的相关性，在p <.001水平上均显著。最后，本研究首次对LPFS - BF 2.0在11.5周间隔内的时间稳定性进行了实证评估，表明总量表和两个子量表均具有较高的时间稳定性（三者的相关系数r均高于.70，p <.001）。
LPFS - BF 2.0意大利版产生了与原始量表及其他国际改编版本相似的心理测量特性，表明其在人格评估研究和实践中的效用。
