Loading…
IS DIMENSIONAL SCORING OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER IMPORTANT ONLY FOR SUBTHRESHOLD LEVELS OF SEVERITY?
Studies comparing dimensional and categorical representations of personality disorders (PDs) have consistently found that PD dimensions are more reliable and valid. While comparisons of dimensional and categorical scoring approaches have consistently favored the dimension model, two reports from the...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of personality disorders 2013-04, Vol.27 (2), p.244-251 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-80438069854690e7ba1a814159c0f4f4be6de41d91d0a829bb56184d3fb0dc2e3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-80438069854690e7ba1a814159c0f4f4be6de41d91d0a829bb56184d3fb0dc2e3 |
container_end_page | 251 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 244 |
container_title | Journal of personality disorders |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | ZIMMERMAN, Mark CHELMINSKI, Iwona YOUNG, Diane DALRYMPLE, Kristy MARTINEZ, Jennifer |
description | Studies comparing dimensional and categorical representations of personality disorders (PDs) have consistently found that PD dimensions are more reliable and valid. While comparisons of dimensional and categorical scoring approaches have consistently favored the dimension model, two reports from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project have raised questions as to when dimensional scoring is important. In the first study, Asnaani, Chelminski, Young, and Zimmerman (2007) found that once the diagnostic threshold for borderline PD was reached the number of criteria met was not significantly associated with indices of psychosocial morbidity. In the second study, Zimmerman, Chelminski, Young, Dalrymple, and Martinez (2012) found that patients with 1 criterion of borderline PD had significantly more psychosocial morbidity than patients with 0 criteria. The findings of these two studies suggest that dimensional ratings of borderline PD may be more strongly associated with indicators of illness severity for patients who do not versus do meet the DSM-IV criteria for borderline PD. In this third report from the MIDAS project, we tested this hypothesis in a study of 3,069 psychiatric outpatients evaluated with semi-structured diagnostic interviews. In the patients without borderline PD the number of borderline features was significantly associated with each of 6 indicators of illness severity, whereas in the patients with borderline PD 3 of the 6 correlations were significant. The mean correlation between the number of borderline PD criteria and the indicators of illness severity was nearly three times higher in the patients without borderline PD than the patients with borderline PD (0.23 versus 0.08), and 4 of the 6 correlation coefficients were significantly higher in the patients without borderline PD. These findings suggest that dimensional scoring of borderline PD is more important for subthreshold levels of pathology and are less critical once a patient meets the diagnostic threshold. The implications of these findings for DSM-5 are discussed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] |
doi_str_mv | 10.1521/pedi_2012_26_022 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1366050480</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2991946861</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-80438069854690e7ba1a814159c0f4f4be6de41d91d0a829bb56184d3fb0dc2e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLw0AURgdRsFb3LgfEZfTOI5OZlfSRtoE0UzKp2NWQJ7T0ZdIu_Pemtrhw4epeuOc7Fz6EHgm8EJeS131ZLC0FQi0VFii9Qh2iOHOoJ9g16oCUruN66uMW3TXNCoAIKUQHbQKDh8HUj0ygo16IzUDHQTTGeoT7Oh76cRhEPp75sTmdg2TR0ubngIPpTMdJL0qwjsIFHukYm3k_mcS-mehwiEP_3Q_NyWTaLW6zb_fopkrXTflwmV00H_nJYOKEehwMeqGTM6oOjgTOJAglXS4UlF6WklQSTlyVQ8UrnpWiKDkpFCkglVRlmSuI5AWrMihyWrIuejp79_Xu81g2B7vaHett-9ISJgS4wCX8T7U-6klXthScqbzeNU1dVnZfLzdp_WUJ2FP19m_1beT5Ik6bPF1XdbrNl81vjnrEU8Ak-wYz_XqX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1318427858</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>IS DIMENSIONAL SCORING OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER IMPORTANT ONLY FOR SUBTHRESHOLD LEVELS OF SEVERITY?</title><source>ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Education Collection</source><creator>ZIMMERMAN, Mark ; CHELMINSKI, Iwona ; YOUNG, Diane ; DALRYMPLE, Kristy ; MARTINEZ, Jennifer</creator><creatorcontrib>ZIMMERMAN, Mark ; CHELMINSKI, Iwona ; YOUNG, Diane ; DALRYMPLE, Kristy ; MARTINEZ, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><description>Studies comparing dimensional and categorical representations of personality disorders (PDs) have consistently found that PD dimensions are more reliable and valid. While comparisons of dimensional and categorical scoring approaches have consistently favored the dimension model, two reports from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project have raised questions as to when dimensional scoring is important. In the first study, Asnaani, Chelminski, Young, and Zimmerman (2007) found that once the diagnostic threshold for borderline PD was reached the number of criteria met was not significantly associated with indices of psychosocial morbidity. In the second study, Zimmerman, Chelminski, Young, Dalrymple, and Martinez (2012) found that patients with 1 criterion of borderline PD had significantly more psychosocial morbidity than patients with 0 criteria. The findings of these two studies suggest that dimensional ratings of borderline PD may be more strongly associated with indicators of illness severity for patients who do not versus do meet the DSM-IV criteria for borderline PD. In this third report from the MIDAS project, we tested this hypothesis in a study of 3,069 psychiatric outpatients evaluated with semi-structured diagnostic interviews. In the patients without borderline PD the number of borderline features was significantly associated with each of 6 indicators of illness severity, whereas in the patients with borderline PD 3 of the 6 correlations were significant. The mean correlation between the number of borderline PD criteria and the indicators of illness severity was nearly three times higher in the patients without borderline PD than the patients with borderline PD (0.23 versus 0.08), and 4 of the 6 correlation coefficients were significantly higher in the patients without borderline PD. These findings suggest that dimensional scoring of borderline PD is more important for subthreshold levels of pathology and are less critical once a patient meets the diagnostic threshold. The implications of these findings for DSM-5 are discussed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0885-579X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-2763</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1521/pedi_2012_26_022</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JPDIEB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Guilford</publisher><subject>Adult and adolescent clinical studies ; Anxiety Disorders ; Biological and medical sciences ; Marital Status ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical sciences ; Morbidity ; Patients ; Personality ; Personality disorders ; Personality Problems ; Psychiatric Hospitals ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Scoring ; Social psychology ; Suicide</subject><ispartof>Journal of personality disorders, 2013-04, Vol.27 (2), p.244-251</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2013 The Guilford Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-80438069854690e7ba1a814159c0f4f4be6de41d91d0a829bb56184d3fb0dc2e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-80438069854690e7ba1a814159c0f4f4be6de41d91d0a829bb56184d3fb0dc2e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1366050480/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1366050480?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21378,21394,27924,27925,33611,33877,43733,43880,74221,74397</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27179038$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>ZIMMERMAN, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHELMINSKI, Iwona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>YOUNG, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DALRYMPLE, Kristy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MARTINEZ, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><title>IS DIMENSIONAL SCORING OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER IMPORTANT ONLY FOR SUBTHRESHOLD LEVELS OF SEVERITY?</title><title>Journal of personality disorders</title><description>Studies comparing dimensional and categorical representations of personality disorders (PDs) have consistently found that PD dimensions are more reliable and valid. While comparisons of dimensional and categorical scoring approaches have consistently favored the dimension model, two reports from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project have raised questions as to when dimensional scoring is important. In the first study, Asnaani, Chelminski, Young, and Zimmerman (2007) found that once the diagnostic threshold for borderline PD was reached the number of criteria met was not significantly associated with indices of psychosocial morbidity. In the second study, Zimmerman, Chelminski, Young, Dalrymple, and Martinez (2012) found that patients with 1 criterion of borderline PD had significantly more psychosocial morbidity than patients with 0 criteria. The findings of these two studies suggest that dimensional ratings of borderline PD may be more strongly associated with indicators of illness severity for patients who do not versus do meet the DSM-IV criteria for borderline PD. In this third report from the MIDAS project, we tested this hypothesis in a study of 3,069 psychiatric outpatients evaluated with semi-structured diagnostic interviews. In the patients without borderline PD the number of borderline features was significantly associated with each of 6 indicators of illness severity, whereas in the patients with borderline PD 3 of the 6 correlations were significant. The mean correlation between the number of borderline PD criteria and the indicators of illness severity was nearly three times higher in the patients without borderline PD than the patients with borderline PD (0.23 versus 0.08), and 4 of the 6 correlation coefficients were significantly higher in the patients without borderline PD. These findings suggest that dimensional scoring of borderline PD is more important for subthreshold levels of pathology and are less critical once a patient meets the diagnostic threshold. The implications of these findings for DSM-5 are discussed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Adult and adolescent clinical studies</subject><subject>Anxiety Disorders</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Marital Status</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Personality disorders</subject><subject>Personality Problems</subject><subject>Psychiatric Hospitals</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Scoring</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Suicide</subject><issn>0885-579X</issn><issn>1943-2763</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>CJNVE</sourceid><sourceid>M0P</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLw0AURgdRsFb3LgfEZfTOI5OZlfSRtoE0UzKp2NWQJ7T0ZdIu_Pemtrhw4epeuOc7Fz6EHgm8EJeS131ZLC0FQi0VFii9Qh2iOHOoJ9g16oCUruN66uMW3TXNCoAIKUQHbQKDh8HUj0ygo16IzUDHQTTGeoT7Oh76cRhEPp75sTmdg2TR0ubngIPpTMdJL0qwjsIFHukYm3k_mcS-mehwiEP_3Q_NyWTaLW6zb_fopkrXTflwmV00H_nJYOKEehwMeqGTM6oOjgTOJAglXS4UlF6WklQSTlyVQ8UrnpWiKDkpFCkglVRlmSuI5AWrMihyWrIuejp79_Xu81g2B7vaHett-9ISJgS4wCX8T7U-6klXthScqbzeNU1dVnZfLzdp_WUJ2FP19m_1beT5Ik6bPF1XdbrNl81vjnrEU8Ak-wYz_XqX</recordid><startdate>20130401</startdate><enddate>20130401</enddate><creator>ZIMMERMAN, Mark</creator><creator>CHELMINSKI, Iwona</creator><creator>YOUNG, Diane</creator><creator>DALRYMPLE, Kristy</creator><creator>MARTINEZ, Jennifer</creator><general>Guilford</general><general>Guilford Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130401</creationdate><title>IS DIMENSIONAL SCORING OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER IMPORTANT ONLY FOR SUBTHRESHOLD LEVELS OF SEVERITY?</title><author>ZIMMERMAN, Mark ; CHELMINSKI, Iwona ; YOUNG, Diane ; DALRYMPLE, Kristy ; MARTINEZ, Jennifer</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-80438069854690e7ba1a814159c0f4f4be6de41d91d0a829bb56184d3fb0dc2e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult and adolescent clinical studies</topic><topic>Anxiety Disorders</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Marital Status</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Personality disorders</topic><topic>Personality Problems</topic><topic>Psychiatric Hospitals</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Scoring</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Suicide</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>ZIMMERMAN, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHELMINSKI, Iwona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>YOUNG, Diane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DALRYMPLE, Kristy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MARTINEZ, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest - Health & Medical Complete保健、医学与药学数据库</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Proquest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Social Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of personality disorders</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>ZIMMERMAN, Mark</au><au>CHELMINSKI, Iwona</au><au>YOUNG, Diane</au><au>DALRYMPLE, Kristy</au><au>MARTINEZ, Jennifer</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>IS DIMENSIONAL SCORING OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER IMPORTANT ONLY FOR SUBTHRESHOLD LEVELS OF SEVERITY?</atitle><jtitle>Journal of personality disorders</jtitle><date>2013-04-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>244</spage><epage>251</epage><pages>244-251</pages><issn>0885-579X</issn><eissn>1943-2763</eissn><coden>JPDIEB</coden><abstract>Studies comparing dimensional and categorical representations of personality disorders (PDs) have consistently found that PD dimensions are more reliable and valid. While comparisons of dimensional and categorical scoring approaches have consistently favored the dimension model, two reports from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project have raised questions as to when dimensional scoring is important. In the first study, Asnaani, Chelminski, Young, and Zimmerman (2007) found that once the diagnostic threshold for borderline PD was reached the number of criteria met was not significantly associated with indices of psychosocial morbidity. In the second study, Zimmerman, Chelminski, Young, Dalrymple, and Martinez (2012) found that patients with 1 criterion of borderline PD had significantly more psychosocial morbidity than patients with 0 criteria. The findings of these two studies suggest that dimensional ratings of borderline PD may be more strongly associated with indicators of illness severity for patients who do not versus do meet the DSM-IV criteria for borderline PD. In this third report from the MIDAS project, we tested this hypothesis in a study of 3,069 psychiatric outpatients evaluated with semi-structured diagnostic interviews. In the patients without borderline PD the number of borderline features was significantly associated with each of 6 indicators of illness severity, whereas in the patients with borderline PD 3 of the 6 correlations were significant. The mean correlation between the number of borderline PD criteria and the indicators of illness severity was nearly three times higher in the patients without borderline PD than the patients with borderline PD (0.23 versus 0.08), and 4 of the 6 correlation coefficients were significantly higher in the patients without borderline PD. These findings suggest that dimensional scoring of borderline PD is more important for subthreshold levels of pathology and are less critical once a patient meets the diagnostic threshold. The implications of these findings for DSM-5 are discussed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Guilford</pub><doi>10.1521/pedi_2012_26_022</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0885-579X |
ispartof | Journal of personality disorders, 2013-04, Vol.27 (2), p.244-251 |
issn | 0885-579X 1943-2763 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1366050480 |
source | ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection; Education Collection |
subjects | Adult and adolescent clinical studies Anxiety Disorders Biological and medical sciences Marital Status Medical diagnosis Medical sciences Morbidity Patients Personality Personality disorders Personality Problems Psychiatric Hospitals Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychopathology. Psychiatry Scoring Social psychology Suicide |
title | IS DIMENSIONAL SCORING OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER IMPORTANT ONLY FOR SUBTHRESHOLD LEVELS OF SEVERITY? |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T10%3A00%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=IS%20DIMENSIONAL%20SCORING%20OF%20BORDERLINE%20PERSONALITY%20DISORDER%20IMPORTANT%20ONLY%20FOR%20SUBTHRESHOLD%20LEVELS%20OF%20SEVERITY?&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20personality%20disorders&rft.au=ZIMMERMAN,%20Mark&rft.date=2013-04-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=244&rft.epage=251&rft.pages=244-251&rft.issn=0885-579X&rft.eissn=1943-2763&rft.coden=JPDIEB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1521/pedi_2012_26_022&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2991946861%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-80438069854690e7ba1a814159c0f4f4be6de41d91d0a829bb56184d3fb0dc2e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1318427858&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |