Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model for borderline personality disorder: Differential diagnostic accuracy of the BFI, SCID-II-PQ, and PID-5

With the publication of DSM 5 alternative model for personality disorders it is critical to assess the components of the model against evidence-based models such as the five factor model and the DSM-IV-TR categorical model. This study explored the relative clinical utility of these models in screeni...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Comprehensive psychiatry 2018-01, Vol.80, p.97-103
Main Authors: Fowler, J. Christopher, Madan, Alok, Allen, Jon G., Patriquin, Michelle, Sharp, Carla, Oldham, John M., Frueh, B. Christopher
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Borderline personality disorder
Impulsivity
Influenza
Medical diagnosis
Mental disorders
Pathology
Personality disorders
Personality traits
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!
Description
Summary:With the publication of DSM 5 alternative model for personality disorders it is critical to assess the components of the model against evidence-based models such as the five factor model and the DSM-IV-TR categorical model. This study explored the relative clinical utility of these models in screening for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Receiver operator characteristics and diagnostic efficiency statistics were calculated for three personality measures to ascertain the relative diagnostic efficiency of each measure. A total of 1653 adult inpatients at a specialist psychiatric hospital completed SCID-II interviews. Sample 1 (n=653) completed the SCID-II interviews, SCID-II Questionnaire (SCID-II-PQ) and the Big Five Inventory (BFI), while Sample 2 (n=1,000) completed the SCID-II interviews, Personality Inventory for DSM5 (PID-5) and the BFI. BFI measure evidenced moderate accuracy for two composites: High Neuroticism+ low agreeableness composite (AUC=0.72, SE=0.01, p
ISSN:0010-440X
1532-8384
DOI:10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.09.003