Perry J C, Klerman G L
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978 Feb;35(2):141-50. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770260019001.
In reviewing the evidence for the validity of the diagnosis borderline, four descriptions in the literature seem to offer comprehensive criteria for the diagnosis. When the four are compared, a total of 104 criteria are enumerated encompassing the mental status, history, interpersonal relationships, defense mechansisms, and other judgments of personality functioning of the borderline patient. Half of these criteria are mentioned in only one of the four diagnostic descriptions. This apparent lack of agreement over diagnostic criteria has three possible interpretations: (1) the borderline concept is an illusion; or (2) the concept is adequately defined by those criteria held in common, the others being nonessential; or (3) apart from the concept defined by the common criteria, there are subtypes emphasized by different authors. Although we favor the third interpretation, it is suggested that further speculation await an adequate test of existing diagnostic criteria.
在回顾有关边缘性人格障碍诊断有效性的证据时,文献中的四种描述似乎为该诊断提供了全面的标准。将这四种描述进行比较时,总共列举了104条标准,涵盖了边缘性人格障碍患者的精神状态、病史、人际关系、防御机制以及其他人格功能判断。其中一半的标准仅在四种诊断描述中的一种中被提及。这种在诊断标准上明显缺乏一致性的情况有三种可能的解释:(1)边缘性人格障碍的概念是一种错觉;(2)该概念由那些共有的标准充分定义,其他标准则并非必要;(3)除了由共同标准定义的概念之外,不同作者还强调了不同的亚型。尽管我们倾向于第三种解释,但建议在对现有诊断标准进行充分检验之前,暂不做进一步的推测。