• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

利用个体参与者数据荟萃分析重新审视《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版第二部分人格障碍标准的结构。

Revisiting the structure of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, Section II personality disorder criteria using individual participant data meta-analysis.

作者信息

Müller Steffen, Schroeders Ulrich, Bachrach Nathan, Benecke Cord, Cuevas Lara, Doering Stephan, Elklit Ask, Gutiérrez Fernando, Hengartner Michael P, Hogue Todd E, Hopwood Christopher J, Mihura Joni L, Oltmanns Thomas F, Paap Muirne C S, Pedersen Geir, Renn Daniela, Ringwald Whitney R, Rossi Gina, Samuels Jack, Sharp Carla, Simonsen Erik, Skodol Andrew E, Wright Aidan G C, Zimmerman Mark, Zimmermann Johannes

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Kassel.

Department of Personality Disorders, GGZ Oost Brabant.

出版信息

Personal Disord. 2025 Jul 24. doi: 10.1037/per0000736.

DOI:10.1037/per0000736
PMID:40705663
Abstract

The factor structure of personality disorder (PD) criteria has long been debated, but due to previous heterogeneous findings, a common structure to represent covariation among the fourth edition Section II PD criteria remains an open question. This study integrated individual participant data from 25 samples ( = 30,545) to conduct factor analyses of PD criteria. Measurement invariance tests across gender, clinical status, and assessment method indicated substantial structural differences between interview-based and self-report measures. In interviews, a confirmatory 10-factor model with factors representing specific PDs showed a major misfit, with results from exploratory factor analyses suggesting that this was due to a relatively small number of substantial secondary loadings. In self-reports, a confirmatory 10-factor model showed greater misfit than in interviews, and exploratory solutions were more complex. When five factors were extracted, the factors showed some similarity to maladaptive trait domains such as Negative Affectivity and Disinhibition, but there were substantial differences in factor content between interviews and self-reports. In bifactor models, a general factor explained more common variance in self-reports, whereas the content of general factors was similar in both assessment methods. Our findings suggest that interview and self-report measures of PD criteria are not structurally equivalent. To advance research on the structure of PD, it may be useful to consequently focus on the shared variance of multiple methods. For this purpose, future multimethod studies should combine interviews and self-reports with other assessment methods such as informant reports. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

人格障碍(PD)标准的因素结构长期以来一直存在争议,但由于先前的研究结果参差不齐,代表《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版第二部分PD标准之间协变的共同结构仍是一个悬而未决的问题。本研究整合了来自25个样本(N = 30,545)的个体参与者数据,对PD标准进行因素分析。跨性别、临床状态和评估方法的测量不变性检验表明,基于访谈的测量和自我报告测量之间存在实质性的结构差异。在访谈中,一个具有代表特定PD因素的验证性10因素模型显示出严重的不匹配,探索性因素分析的结果表明,这是由于相对较少数量的实质性次要负荷所致。在自我报告中,一个验证性10因素模型显示出比访谈中更大的不匹配,探索性解决方案也更复杂。当提取五个因素时,这些因素与诸如消极情感性和抑制不足等适应不良特质领域有一些相似之处,但访谈和自我报告之间的因素内容存在实质性差异。在双因素模型中,一个一般因素在自我报告中解释了更多的共同方差,而两种评估方法中一般因素 的内容相似。我们的研究结果表明,PD标准的访谈和自我报告测量在结构上并不等同。为了推进对PD结构的研究,因此可能有必要专注于多种方法的共同方差研究。为此,未来的多方法研究应将访谈和自我报告与其他评估方法(如知情者报告)结合起来。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2025美国心理学会,保留所有权利)

相似文献

1
Revisiting the structure of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, Section II personality disorder criteria using individual participant data meta-analysis.利用个体参与者数据荟萃分析重新审视《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版第二部分人格障碍标准的结构。
Personal Disord. 2025 Jul 24. doi: 10.1037/per0000736.
2
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
3
The Black Book of Psychotropic Dosing and Monitoring.《精神药物剂量与监测黑皮书》
Psychopharmacol Bull. 2024 Jul 8;54(3):8-59.
4
[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].[容量与健康结果:来自系统评价和意大利医院数据评估的证据]
Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun;37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100.
5
Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.社区居住的老年人跌倒预防干预措施:系统评价和荟萃分析的益处、危害以及患者的价值观和偏好。
Syst Rev. 2024 Nov 26;13(1):289. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02681-3.
6
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状Meta分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 9;1(1):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub3.
7
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
8
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
9
A New Measure of Quantified Social Health Is Associated With Levels of Discomfort, Capability, and Mental and General Health Among Patients Seeking Musculoskeletal Specialty Care.一种新的量化社会健康指标与寻求肌肉骨骼专科护理的患者的不适程度、能力以及心理和总体健康水平相关。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Apr 1;483(4):647-663. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003394. Epub 2025 Feb 5.
10
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.