Comprehensive psychiatry · 2017
Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model for borderline personality disorder: Differential diagnostic accuracy of the BFI, SCID-II-PQ, and PID-5.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fowler J Christopher, Madan Alok, Allen Jon G, Patriquin Michelle, Sharp Carla, Oldham John M, Frueh B Christopher
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: With the publication of DSM 5 alternative model for personality disorders it is critical to assess the components of the model against evidence-based models such as the five factor model and the DSM-IV-TR categorical model. This study explored the relative clinical utility of these models in screening for borderline personality disorder (BPD).
METHODS: Receiver operator characteristics and diagnostic efficiency statistics were calculated for three personality measures to ascertain the relative diagnostic efficiency of each measure. A total of 1653 adult inpatients at a specialist psychiatric hospital completed SCID-II interviews. Sample 1 (n=653) completed the SCID-II interviews, SCID-II Questionnaire (SCID-II-PQ) and the Big Five Inventory (BFI), while Sample 2 (n=1,000) completed the SCID-II interviews, Personality Inventory for DSM5 (PID-5) and the BFI.
RESULTS: BFI measure evidenced moderate accuracy for two composites: High Neuroticism+ low agreeableness composite (AUC=0.72, SE=0.01, p<0.001) and High Neuroticism+ Low+Low Conscientiousness (AUC=0.73, SE=0.01, p<0.0001). The SCID-II-PQ evidenced moderate-to-excellent accuracy (AUC=0.86, SE=0.02, p<0.0001) with a good balance of specificity (SP=0.80) and sensitivity (SN=0.78). The PID-5 BPD algorithm (consisting of elevated emotional lability, anxiousness, separation insecurity, hostility, depressivity, impulsivity, and risk taking) evidenced moderate-to-excellent accuracy (AUC=0.87, SE=0.01, p<0.0001) with a good balance of specificity (SP=0.76) and sensitivity (SN=0.81).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings generally support the use of SCID-II-PQ and PID-5 BPD algorithm for screening purposes. Furthermore, findings support the accuracy of the DSM 5 alternative model Criteria B trait constellation for diagnosing BPD. Limitations of the study include the single inpatient setting and use of two discrete samples to assess PID-5 and SCID-II-PQ.
METHODS: Receiver operator characteristics and diagnostic efficiency statistics were calculated for three personality measures to ascertain the relative diagnostic efficiency of each measure. A total of 1653 adult inpatients at a specialist psychiatric hospital completed SCID-II interviews. Sample 1 (n=653) completed the SCID-II interviews, SCID-II Questionnaire (SCID-II-PQ) and the Big Five Inventory (BFI), while Sample 2 (n=1,000) completed the SCID-II interviews, Personality Inventory for DSM5 (PID-5) and the BFI.
RESULTS: BFI measure evidenced moderate accuracy for two composites: High Neuroticism+ low agreeableness composite (AUC=0.72, SE=0.01, p<0.001) and High Neuroticism+ Low+Low Conscientiousness (AUC=0.73, SE=0.01, p<0.0001). The SCID-II-PQ evidenced moderate-to-excellent accuracy (AUC=0.86, SE=0.02, p<0.0001) with a good balance of specificity (SP=0.80) and sensitivity (SN=0.78). The PID-5 BPD algorithm (consisting of elevated emotional lability, anxiousness, separation insecurity, hostility, depressivity, impulsivity, and risk taking) evidenced moderate-to-excellent accuracy (AUC=0.87, SE=0.01, p<0.0001) with a good balance of specificity (SP=0.76) and sensitivity (SN=0.81).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings generally support the use of SCID-II-PQ and PID-5 BPD algorithm for screening purposes. Furthermore, findings support the accuracy of the DSM 5 alternative model Criteria B trait constellation for diagnosing BPD. Limitations of the study include the single inpatient setting and use of two discrete samples to assess PID-5 and SCID-II-PQ.