Comparing Personality Disorder Models: FFM and DSM-IV

比较人格障碍模型：FFM 和 DSM-IV

• 批准号: 7319658
• 负责人: DOUGLAS B SAMUEL
• 金额: $ 3.39万
• 依托单位: UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 财政年份: 2005
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2005-12-17 至 2008-12-16
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/7319658
• 关键词: American; Biological Models; Categories; Client; Clinical; DSM-IV; DSM-V; Diagnostic; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual; Dimensions; Disadvantaged; Disease; Disease model; Emotional; Equipment and supply inventories; Feedback; Individual; Interview; Introversion; Link; Methodology; Methods; Modeling; Neurotic Disorders; Nomenclature; Outpatients; Participant; Patient Self-Report; Personality; Personality Disorders; Population; Psychotherapy; Publishing; Rate; Reporting; Research; Research Personnel; Structure; Syndrome; System; Training; Work; Writing; base; design; experience; trait

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The proposed study will allow the current DSM-IV categorical model of personality disorders to be compared directly to the Five-Factor model (FFM) of personality, on the basis of temporal stability within a clinical setting, convergent and discriminant validity, and clinical utility. The FFM is the most heavily researched of the dimensional models that have been proposed as an alternative for the current DSM-IV system. The DSM- IV and FFM ratings will be assessed in a group of 75 self-referred individuals who are currently receiving outpatient psychotherapy for a personality disorder using the four primary methods of assessment used in clinical practice: unstructured clinical interview by the client's therapist, semi-structured interview by a trained researcher, self-report inventory and informant report. Additionally, the same participants will be assessed again after six months to examine the temporal stability of each model. Finally, the therapists who are treating these clients and providing the unstructured clinical interview ratings will also provide feedback on the clinical utility of each model. It is hoped that this research will help to better conceptualize personality difficulties and ultimately a more coherent and useful diagnostic system.

描述（由申请人提供）：拟议的研究将允许当前的DSM-IV人格障碍分类模型直接与人格的五因素模型（FFM）进行比较，其基础是临床环境中的时间稳定性、收敛和判别效度以及临床实用性。FFM是目前DSM-IV系统中研究最多的维度模型。将在一组75名目前正在接受人格障碍门诊心理治疗的自我推荐个体中评估DSM- IV和FFM评级，使用临床实践中使用的四种主要评估方法：客户治疗师的非结构化临床访谈，经过培训的研究人员的半结构化访谈，自我报告清单和线人报告。此外，同样的参与者将在六个月后再次接受评估，以检查每个模型的时间稳定性。最后，治疗这些客户并提供非结构化临床访谈评级的治疗师也将提供对每个模型临床效用的反馈。希望这项研究将有助于更好地概念化人格困难，并最终建立一个更连贯和有用的诊断系统。

项目成果

A comparison of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder scales.

强迫性人格障碍量表的比较。

• DOI: 10.1080/00223891003670182
• 发表时间: 2010
• 期刊: Journal of personality assessment
• 影响因子: 3.4
• 作者: Samuel,DouglasB;Widiger,ThomasA
• 通讯作者: Widiger,ThomasA

Clinicians' Use of Personality Disorder Models within a Particular Treatment Setting: A Longitudinal Comparison of Temporal Consistency and Clinical Utility.

临床医生在特定治疗环境中使用人格障碍模型：时间一致性和临床实用性的纵向比较。

• DOI: 10.1002/pmh.152
• 发表时间: 2011
• 期刊: Personality and mental health
• 影响因子: 2.7
• 作者: Samuel,DouglasB;Widiger,ThomasA
• 通讯作者: Widiger,ThomasA

A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis.

• DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002
• 发表时间: 2008-12
• 期刊: Clinical psychology review
• 影响因子: 12.8
• 作者: Samuel DB;Widiger TA
• 通讯作者: Widiger TA

Five factor model prototype matching scores: convergence within alternative methods.

五因素模型原型匹配分数：替代方法内的收敛。

• DOI: 10.1521/pedi.2011.25.5.571
• 发表时间: 2011
• 期刊: Journal of personality disorders
• 影响因子: 2.3
• 作者: Samuel,DouglasB;Edmundson,Maryanne;Widiger,ThomasA
• 通讯作者: Widiger,ThomasA

Comparing personality disorder models: cross-method assessment of the FFM and DSM-IV-TR.

比较人格障碍模型：FFM 和 DSM-IV-TR 的交叉方法评估。

• DOI: 10.1521/pedi.2010.24.6.721
• 发表时间: 2010
• 期刊: Journal of personality disorders
• 影响因子: 2.3
• 作者: Samuel,DouglasB;Widiger,ThomasW
• 通讯作者: Widiger,ThomasW