A comparison of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder scales.
A comparison of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder scales.
复制标题
强迫性人格障碍量表的比较。
DOI：
10.1080/00223891003670182
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Widiger,ThomasA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Samuel,DouglasB;Widiger,ThomasA
在本研究中，我们利用为《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(第四版，文本修订[DSM-IV-TR]；美国精神病学协会，2000)而超抽样的大样本(N=536)强迫症人格障碍(OCPD)病理学，比较强迫症人格障碍(OCPD)的8个自评量表。以前没有研究比较过3个以上的测量，结果表明这些量表只有中等的收敛效度。我们还超越了现有的文献，将这些量表与两个外部参照点进行了比较：它们与五因素人格模型(FFM)的良好测量之间的关系，以及临床医生对他们对DSM-IV-TR标准集的覆盖程度的评级。当FFM被用作比较点时，结果表明，在责任心、神经质和宜人性的不同表征方面，这些测量之间存在着重要的差异。此外，对结构覆盖率的分析表明，这些措施在代表特定诊断标准方面也有所不同。例如，虽然一些量表包含了分布在诊断标准上的条目，但其他量表更多地集中在DSM-IV-R障碍的特定特征上。
In this study, we utilized a large undergraduate sample (N= 536), oversampled for theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(4th ed., text revision [DSM–IV–TR]; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) pathology, to compare 8 self-report measures of OCPD. No prior study has compared more than 3 measures, and the results indicate that the scales had only moderate convergent validity. We also went beyond the existing literature to compare these scales to 2 external reference points: their relationships with a well-established measure of the five-factor model of personality (FFM) and clinicians' ratings of their coverage of theDSM–IV–TRcriterion set. When the FFM was used as a point of comparison, the results suggest important differences among the measures with respect to their divergent representation of conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness. Additionally, an analysis of the construct coverage indicated that the measures also varied in terms of their representation of particular diagnostic criteria. For example, whereas some scales contained items distributed across the diagnostic criteria, others were concentrated more heavily on particular features of theDSM–IV–TRdisorder.