Widiger T A
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0044, USA.
J Pers Disord. 1998 Summer;12(2):95-118. doi: 10.1521/pedi.1998.12.2.95.
One of the more difficult issues in the development of each edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been a possible sex bias in the personality disorder diagnoses. A substantial amount of discussion and research on this issue has occurred since the 1980 publication of the third edition of the DSM. It is now apparent that there are a number of different ways in which the differential sex prevalence rates for the DSM-IV personality disorders could reflect a sex bias, including biased diagnostic constructs, biased thresholds for diagnosis, biased population sampling, biased application of diagnostic criteria, biased instruments of assessment, and biased diagnostic criteria. It is important to understand these different forms of sex bias, as each can occur independently of, be confused with, and interact with one another. The purpose of this paper is to differentiate among, and to describe the support for, each of these different forms of sex bias, with the hope of contributing to their recognition and ultimate resolution.
美国精神病学协会《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(DSM)每一版的编制过程中,较棘手的问题之一是人格障碍诊断中可能存在的性别偏见。自1980年DSM第三版出版以来,针对这一问题已展开了大量讨论与研究。现在很明显,DSM-IV人格障碍的性别患病率差异能以多种不同方式反映性别偏见,包括有偏差的诊断结构、诊断阈值、总体抽样、诊断标准的应用、评估工具以及诊断标准。了解这些不同形式的性别偏见很重要,因为它们各自可能独立出现、相互混淆并相互作用。本文旨在区分并描述这些不同形式的性别偏见所获的支持,以期有助于对它们的识别及最终解决。