Psychometric evaluation of the Estonian version of the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1)

Abstract

Background The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders introduced a dimensional perspective on personality disorders. The model assesses functioning in four domains: Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy, and Intimacy. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) in Estonian. Method The sample consists of 131 participants: 58 from the general population and 73 from a mixed clinical sample that is further divided into a mood and anxiety disorder sample and personality disorder sample. All participants completed the STiP-5.1 interview and the Level of Personality Functioning Scale–Brief Form (LPFS-BF 2.0). Results The Estonian STiP-5.1 interview has good internal consistency (McDonald's ω between .94–.98) and high convergent validity (correlations with LPFS-BF 2.0 above .7). Interview scores successfully differentiated the general population from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen’s d = 2.68), as well as patients with personality disorder from those without (Cohen’s d = 1.76). The LPFS-BF 2.0 total score differentiates the general population sample from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen’s d = 1.99) but not the personality disorder sample from other clinical sample participants. Conclusions The properties of the Estonian STiP-5.1 replicate those of other languages, and empirically support a unified personality functioning dimension that can be meaningfully thought of as reflecting impairments in self and interpersonal functioning. Findings of this study will be discussed in the light of the ongoing debate on the dimensionality of personality pathology and the use of self-report versus interview measures for assessing personality pathology.

Clinical profiles of adolescent personality pathology: a latent structure examination of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) in a help-seeking sample

“…This assertion also aligns with specific requirements from individual elements to assign a specified PD in the AMPD. Regardless, although debate regarding the factor structure of Criterion A is ongoing [ 67 ], the two-factor component reflecting self- and interpersonal functioning, aligns with previous research (mostly in adults) on Criterion A that, despite some mixed results, has mostly found a two-factor structure (resembling self- and interpersonal-functioning) to be most appropriate [ 26 , 68 , 69 ]. Thus, the supporting two-factor component might reflect the broader developmental applicability and suitability of the LPFS in assessing personality pathology across the life course, whereby the structure of self- and interpersonal-functioning is retained in both adult and adolescent samples.…”

Practical implications of ICD-11 personality disorder classifications

“…The STiP5.1 has been translated into several versions and proven to be valuable to evaluate personality functioning dimensions. Notably, it has been utilized effectively in different cultural contexts, such as the Czech [55], Estonian [56], and German [57] versions. As a specific tool for assessing personality functioning in adolescence, the Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12-18 (LoPF-Q 12-18) is available and recommended [58].…”

First psychometric evaluation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale—Brief Form 2.0 in adolescents.

“…Administered in 45 min on average, it may also contribute to participant burden (Weekers et al, 2021). Moreover, this interview-based measure is, to our knowledge, thus far validated in Dutch, Czech, Estonian, and German samples (Heissler et al, 2021;Oitsalu et al, 2022;Wang & Eastwick, 2020;Zettl et al, 2019). As a result, there is a need for briefer, more time-efficient LPF measures that can be used in English-speaking countries and that are validated for adolescents.…”