Comparing the temporal stability of self-report and interview assessed personality disorder.

Samuel, Douglas B.; Hopwood, Christopher J.; Ansell, Emily B.; Morey, Leslie C.; Sanislow, Charles A.; Markowitz, John C.; Yen, Shirley; Shea, M. Tracie; Skodol, Andrew E.; Grilo, Carlos M.

doi:10.1037/a0022647

Cited by 51 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However comparing confidence intervals is the only method available for kappas derived from dependent samples (McKenzie et al, 1996; Samuel et al, 2011). It is noteworthy that the confidence intervals for four diagnoses—MDD, OCD, Social Phobia, and Dysthymia—do not overlap, clearly indicating a significant difference across method.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Method matters: Understanding diagnostic reliability in DSM-IV and DSM-5.

Chmielewski¹,

Clark²,

Bagby³

et al. 2015

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnostic reliability is essential for the science and practice of psychology, in part because reliability is necessary for validity. Recently, the DSM-5 Field Trials documented lower diagnostic reliability than past field trials and the general research literature, resulting in substantial criticism of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Rather than indicating specific problems with DSM-5, however, the Field Trials may have revealed long-standing diagnostic issues that have been hidden due to a reliance on audio/video-recordings for estimating reliability. We estimated the reliability of DSM-IV diagnoses using both the standard audio-recording method and the test-retest method used in the DSM-5 Field Trials, in which different clinicians conduct separate interviews. Psychiatric patients (N = 339) were diagnosed using the SCID-I/P; 218 were diagnosed a second time by an independent interviewer. Diagnostic reliability using the audio-recording method (N = 49) was “good” to “excellent” (M kappa = .80) and comparable to the DSM-IV Field Trials estimates. Reliability using the test-retest method (N = 218) was “poor” to “fair” (M kappa = .47) and similar to DSM-5 Field-Trials’ estimates. Despite low test-retest diagnostic reliability, self-reported symptoms were highly stable. Moreover, there was no association between change in self-report and change in diagnostic status. These results demonstrate the influence of method on estimates of diagnostic reliability.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Method matters: Understanding diagnostic reliability in DSM-IV and DSM-5.

Chmielewski¹,

Clark²,

Bagby³

et al. 2015

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This general finding was cited as a major reason for developing a revised system for characterizing and diagnosing PDs published in Section III (Emerging Models and Measures) of the DSM-5 (Skodol et al, 2011). Although past research suggests that dimensional assessments of PD traits are more stable than disorders or symptom counts (Hopwood et al, 2013; Morey et al, 2007; Samuel et al, 2011), the longitudinal (i.e., > 1 year) stabilities of the DSM-5 traits remain unknown. The current study was conducted to determine the mean-level, rank-order, and individual stability of the DSM-5 PD traits, as well as the longitudinal associations among traits and psychosocial functioning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 3 The self-reported criteria in Samuel et al (2011) were drawn from the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993), whereas Lenzenweger (1999) used the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – II (Millon, 1987). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of the DSM-5 Section III pathological personality traits and their longitudinal associations with psychosocial functioning in personality disordered individuals.

Wright¹,

Calabrese²,

Rudick³

et al. 2015

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to establish (a) the stability of the DSM-5 Section III personality disorder (PD) traits, (b) whether these traits predict future psychosocial functioning, and (c) whether changes in traits track with changes in psychosocial functioning across time. Ninety-three outpatients (61% Female) diagnosed with at least one PD completed patient-report measures at two time-points (M time between assessments = 1.44 years), including the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 and several measures of psychosocial functioning. Effect sizes of rank-order and mean-level change were calculated. In addition, Time 1 traits were used to predict functioning measures at Time 2. Finally, latent change score models were estimated for DSM-5 Section III traits and functioning measures, and correlations among latent change scores were calculated to establish the relationship between change in traits and functional outcomes. Findings demonstrated that the DSM-5 Section III traits were highly stable in terms of normative (i.e., mean-level) change and rank-order stability over the course of the study. Furthermore, traits prospectively predicted psychosocial functioning. However, at the individual level traits and functioning were not entirely static over the study, and change in individuals’ functioning tracked with changes in trait levels. These findings demonstrate that the DSM-5 Section III traits are highly stable consistent with the definition of PD, prospectively predictive of psychosocial functioning, and dynamically associated with functioning over time. This study provides important evidence in support of the DSM-5 Section III PD model.

show abstract

“…Markon, Chmielewski, and Miller (2011) found that continuous variables are substantially more reliable and valid than categorical variables. It follows that estimates of the differential and absolute stability of personality disorder tend to be higher when they are treated as continuous symptom counts rather than diagnostic categories (Samuel et al, 2011).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research comparing these methods generally finds that questionnaires produce relatively higher stability estimates than diagnostic interviews. For instance, in the CLPS study, Samuel et al (2011) found that the 2-year differential stability was r = .69 for a questionnaire measure and r = .60 for an interview, whereas the absolute change was d = .21 for the questionnaire and d = .30 for the interview.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability and change in personality and personality disorders

Hopwood

Bleidorn

2018

Current Opinion in Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we review recent findings related to stability and change in personality and personality disorder. Estimates of stability vary depending on a number of methodological and substantive factors.These factors include the type of stability being examined, the type of construct being assessed, the method being used to assess personality, how participants are sampled, and developmental trends in personality stability and change. We describe current evidence about personality stability with respect to each of these factors. We conclude that current gaps in the literature can be filled by more carefully attending to factors that impact estimates of stability and change, and provide recommendations about how future research can fill those gaps.

show abstract

Comparing the temporal stability of self-report and interview assessed personality disorder.

Cited by 51 publications

References 65 publications

Method matters: Understanding diagnostic reliability in DSM-IV and DSM-5.

Method matters: Understanding diagnostic reliability in DSM-IV and DSM-5.

Stability of the DSM-5 Section III pathological personality traits and their longitudinal associations with psychosocial functioning in personality disordered individuals.

Stability and change in personality and personality disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About