Comparative Content Analysis of Self-Report Scales for Level of Personality Functioning

Waugh, Mark H.; McClain, Cara M.; Mariotti, Emily C.; Mulay, Abby L.; DeVore, Elliott N.; Lenger, Katherine A.; Russell, Ashley N; Florimbio, Autumn Rae; Lewis, Katie C.; Ridenour, Jeremy M.; Beevers, Lorrie G

doi:10.1080/00223891.2019.1705464

Cited by 42 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…meaningful patterns of associations with related psychological constructs were found for the four SIFS subscales. Content validity analysis of the SIFS items also showed promising results, and the severity level assessed by its items makes it very well suited to study populations with greater psychopathology [46]. In the present study, the four elements were used as LPA indicators, while the global score was used to contrast pro les.…”

Section: Self-reported Variablesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Latent Profiles of Patients with Borderline Pathology Based on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Gamache

Savard

Leclerc

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There have been multiple attempts to try to parse out heterogeneity within borderline pathology by identifying patient subtypes; thus far, these works have yielded few consistent results. Recent developments in the operationalization of borderline pathology may provide new opportunities to identify clinically and conceptually meaningful subgroups of patients. The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) offers a categorical-dimensional operationalization of Borderline personality disorder (BPD) that has yet to be tested for identification of patient subgroups. The purpose of the present study is to test whether the combination of the Criterion A elements (pertaining to level of severity) and the seven pathological traits from Criterion B that define BPD in the AMPD can yield meaningful patient profiles. Methods A total of 211 outpatients from a specialized PD treatment program (133 women, Mage = 33.66, SD = 10.97) were selected based on the presence of at least moderate borderline pathology according to cutoffs recently proposed for the Borderline Symptom List-23. Valid Criterion A (Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Short Form) self-reports were administered to measure elements and traits that define BPD in the AMPD model; these variables were used as indicators in a Latent profile analysis (LPA). Results The optimal solution generated by LPA yielded four distinct profiles: (a) Borderline traits; (b) Low borderline pathology with Impulsivity; (c) Moderate borderline pathology with Identity problems and Depressivity; and (d) Severe borderline pathology. Clinically meaningful distinctions emerged between profiles on AMPD indicators and external variables relevant to PD, especially aggression and impulsivity. Conclusions Profiles reflected both the “severity” and “style” components imbedded within Criterion A and B of the AMPD, as they were mainly distinguished by a continuum of severity but also by some meaningful qualitative differences that may have important clinical implications for treatment planning and contracting. Results also suggest that the four Criterion A elements have independent value to identify important differences in patients with borderline pathology. They also highlight that some Criterion B traits that define BPD in the AMPD may be especially important to identify subgroups of patients, mainly Impulsivity and Depressivity.

show abstract

Section: Self-reported Variablesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Latent Profiles of Patients with Borderline Pathology Based on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Gamache

Savard

Leclerc

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research on the SIFS using CFA yielded a second-order model, with four elements organized into a higher-order personality dysfunction factor [ 31 ]; meaningful patterns of associations with related psychological constructs were found for the four SIFS subscales. Content validity analysis of the SIFS items also showed promising results, and the severity level assessed by its items makes it very well suited to study populations with greater psychopathology [ 32 ]. In the present study, the four elements were used as LPA indicators, while the global score was used to contrast profiles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latent profiles of patients with borderline pathology based on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

Gamache

Savard

Leclerc

et al. 2021

bord personal disord emot dysregul

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There have been multiple attempts to try to parse out heterogeneity within borderline pathology by identifying patient subtypes; thus far, these works have yielded few consistent results. Recent developments in the operationalization of borderline pathology may provide new opportunities to identify clinically and conceptually meaningful subgroups of patients. The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) offers a categorical-dimensional operationalization of Borderline personality disorder (BPD) that has yet to be tested for identification of patient subgroups. The purpose of the present study is to test whether the combination of the Criterion A elements (pertaining to level of severity) and the seven pathological facets from Criterion B that define BPD in the AMPD can yield meaningful patient profiles. Methods A total of 211 outpatients from a specialized PD treatment program (133 women, Mage = 33.66, SD = 10.97) were selected based on the presence of at least moderate borderline pathology according to cutoffs recently proposed for the Borderline Symptom List-23. Valid Criterion A (Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Faceted Brief Form) self-reports were administered to measure elements and facets that define BPD in the AMPD model; these variables were used as indicators in a latent profile analysis (LPA). Results The optimal solution generated by LPA yielded four distinct profiles: (a) Borderline traits; (b) Moderate pathology with Impulsivity; (c) Moderate pathology with Identity problems and Depressivity; and (d) Severe pathology. Clinically meaningful distinctions emerged among profiles on AMPD indicators and external variables relevant to PD, especially aggression and impulsivity. Conclusions Profiles reflected both the “severity” and “style” components imbedded within Criterion A and B of the AMPD, as they were mainly distinguished by a continuum of severity but also by some meaningful qualitative differences that may have important clinical implications for treatment planning and contracting. Results also suggest that the four Criterion A elements have independent value to identify important differences in patients with borderline pathology. They also highlight that some Criterion B facets that define BPD in the AMPD may be especially important to identify subgroups of patients, mainly Impulsivity and Depressivity.

show abstract

“…For example, measures are available that are based on psychodynamic conceptualizations (e.g., Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis – Structure Questionnaire Short Form [OPD-SQS] [24, 25]; Inventory of Personality Organization [IPO] [26, 27]), AMPD criterion A (LPFS – Brief Form [LPFS-BF] [28]; LPFS – Self-Report [LPFS-SR] [29]), AMPD criterion B (PID-5) [22] and ICD-11 (Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder [SASPD] [30]). Despite their semantic similarities [31], it is not clear whether these measures assess the same construct and how scores obtained from these measures can be compared.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Common Metric for Self-Reported Severity of Personality Disorder

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Dimensional models of personality disorders (PD) in the DSM-5 and ICD-11 share a focus on impairments in self and interpersonal functioning to represent the general features and severity of PD. This new perspective has led to the development of numerous measures for assessing individual differences in PD severity. While this improves choices for researchers and practitioners, it also poses the challenge of an increasing lack of standardization. Objective: The aim of this study is to establish a common metric across 6 widely used self-report measures of PD severity using item response theory models. Methods: 849 participants completed a survey including the Inventory of Personality Organization-16-item version (IPO-16), the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report, the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis-Structure Questionnaire Short Form, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form Plus and the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD). We fitted exploratory multidimensional graded response models and used bifactor rotation to extract a general factor across measures. Factor scores were linked to representative T scores using data from a representative survey of 2,502 participants who completed the IPO-16. Results: When using bifactor rotation in a 7-factor model, all items loaded positively on the general factor, and the general factor explained 65.5% of the common variance. With the exception of the SASPD, all measures provided highly discriminating items (factor loadings > 0.70) for measuring the general factor and reached an acceptable reliability (> 0.80) across a wide range of the latent continuum. We constructed a crosswalk table linking total scores of the 6 measures to each other and to representative T scores. Conclusions: Our results suggest that 6 different self-report measures of the severity of PD capture a strong common factor and can therefore be scaled along a single latent continuum. Our results may facilitate instrument-independent assessment of severity of PD and increase comparability across studies.

show abstract

Comparative Content Analysis of Self-Report Scales for Level of Personality Functioning

Cited by 42 publications

References 83 publications

Latent Profiles of Patients with Borderline Pathology Based on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Latent Profiles of Patients with Borderline Pathology Based on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Latent profiles of patients with borderline pathology based on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

A Common Metric for Self-Reported Severity of Personality Disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About