Person–situation integration in research on personality problems

The Italian Version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Personality Disorders Scales (IIP-47): Psychometric Properties and Clinical Usefulness as a Screening Measure

“…Even though the most frequently used methods for personality assessment in research studies are retrospective self-report questionnaires (Bornstein, 2003;Leising & Müller-Plath, 2009), a large body of literature indicates that diagnosing Personality Disorders (PDs) with Structured Interviews is also valid (Zimmerman, Rothschild, & Chelminski, 2005). Moreover, the practical issue as to whether the interviewer's observations during an interview have incremental predictive validity over the subject's From Psyche-dendron Association, Milan, Italy (A. U., C. C., D. D.); and University of Genova, Italy (C. C.).…”

“…self-report has not yet been empirically addressed (Leising & Müller-Plath, 2009). Given that there is some controversy as to how best to assess PDs, the choice of which measure to use should take into account both the context (i.e., large sample of individuals, administration, and scoring time) and the expected results.…”

“…Given that there is some controversy as to how best to assess PDs, the choice of which measure to use should take into account both the context (i.e., large sample of individuals, administration, and scoring time) and the expected results. Structured Interviews afford the clinicians a chance to match up their own observations of the patient's behavior to what a patient states (Leising & Müller-Plath, 2009), but they are often too labor-intensive and demand considerable resources (i.e., money and trained staff). In addition, the chances that other people may provide a subject with honest feedback about his/her interpersonal behaviors may decrease according to how undesirable those behaviors are (Leising & Müller-Plath, 2009).…”

“…Structured Interviews afford the clinicians a chance to match up their own observations of the patient's behavior to what a patient states (Leising & Müller-Plath, 2009), but they are often too labor-intensive and demand considerable resources (i.e., money and trained staff). In addition, the chances that other people may provide a subject with honest feedback about his/her interpersonal behaviors may decrease according to how undesirable those behaviors are (Leising & Müller-Plath, 2009). Even trained personnel are not totally disengaged from this kind of bias, which is linked to both cultural input and significance and social stereotypes.…”

“…Besides, systematic discrepancies in judging interpersonal behaviors represent a considerable proportion of DSM-IV's (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) Axis II PD criteria and, despite previous literature (Clifton, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2004 arguing the particular inaccuracy of PD patients in assessing their own problematic behaviors, recent findings have highlighted that some kinds of personality pathology may show relatively good insight, so that the interviewer's judgment may not add much above what the patient himself or herself would report in a questionnaire (Leising & Müller-Plath, 2009). Hence, when assessment focuses on those domains of psychological functioning calling for a subjective perspective and given that targets are willing to honestly report their feelings or cognitions, the latter have, by definition, privileged access to the relevant information (Leising & Müller-Plath, 2009). Moreover, aside from its long tradition in personality research and low cost, the advantages of the self report method are that it is free from systematic biases and does not demand trained staff.…”