VALIDITY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS

人格障碍诊断的有效性

• 批准号: 3384055
• 负责人: Paul A Pilkonis
• 金额: $ 23.75万
• 依托单位: UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 财政年份: 1990
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 1990-04-01 至 1994-03-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/3384055
• 关键词: diagnosis quality /standard; human middle age (35-64); human subject; interview; longitudinal human study; mental disorder diagnosis; personality disorders; personality tests; psychological tests; young adult human (21-34)

Research on personality disorders is plagued by methodological difficulties. The development of structured interviews for personality disorders has addressed concerns regarding interrater reliability, but even with structured interviews, there is relatively little evidence of the clinical and predictive validity of the diagnoses made. The most pressing scientific issue at present is documenting the validity of diagnoses derived from such measures, and the primary goal of the present proposal is to collect data necessary to address the validity question. The first specific aim is to conduct a study of the clinical and predictive validity of the Personality Disorder Examination (PDE) and the Structured Interview for the DSM-III Personality Disorders (SIDP) in a sample of 200 patients with nonpsychotic diagnoses on Axis I of DSM-III-R. The method for establishing validity has been pretested in a pilot study and relies heavily on Spitzer's recommendations for the use of the "LEAD standard." The acronym LEAD refers to three key concepts: the use of Longitudinal information, ratings of Expert clinicians, and the collection of All Data available. The second aim is to compare the diagnoses derived from clinical consensus and the structured interviews (PDE and SIDP) with those generated by the Wisconsin Personality Inventory (WISPI), the most promising self-report instrument currently available for Axis II disorders. The third aim is to investigate the influence of symptomatic state on what are assumed to be trait assessments done by these different methods (clinical consensus, structured interview, and self-report). The "state vs. trait" issue (especially as it influences the concordance between informants and among evaluation methods) is a thorny but fundamental problem in the attempt to establish valid assessment procedures. A longitudinal design will allow us to measure the stability of trait assessments (done using different methods and relying on different informants) as the patient's symptomatology varies over a 12-month period.

人格障碍的研究受到方法论的困扰 困难 人格结构化访谈的发展 疾病已经解决了关于评分者间可靠性的问题，但即使 在结构化访谈中， 诊断的临床和预测有效性。 最紧迫的 目前的科学问题是记录诊断的有效性 这些措施产生的，本提案的主要目标是 收集解决有效性问题所需的数据。 第一个具体目标是进行一项临床和预测性研究， 人格障碍测验（PDE）和结构化人格障碍测验（Structured Personality Disorder Examination， DSM-III人格障碍（SIDP）的200例样本访谈 在DSM-III-R轴I上诊断为非精神病的患者。 述的方法 已经在试点研究中进行了预先测试， 斯皮策关于使用“铅标准”的建议。" 首字母缩略词LEAD指的是三个关键概念： 信息、专家临床医生的评级以及所有数据的收集 available. 第二个目的是比较来自 临床共识和结构化访谈（PDE和SIDP） 由威斯康星州人格调查表（WISPI）生成， 有前途的自我报告工具，目前可用于轴II障碍。 第三个目的是调查症状状态对什么的影响 被认为是通过这些不同的方法进行的特质评估 （临床共识、结构化访谈和自我报告）。 “国家” vs.特质”问题（特别是当它影响到 信息提供者和评价方法之间）是一个棘手的，但根本的 在试图建立有效的评估程序的问题。 一 纵向设计将允许我们测量性状的稳定性， 评估（使用不同的方法， 由于患者在12个月内的泌尿学变化，