Screening for personality disorders

A brief but valid self-report measure to screen for personality disorders (PDs) would be a valuable tool in making decisions about further assessment and in planning optimal treatments. In psychiatric and nonpsychiatric samples, we compared the validity of three screening measures: the PD scales fro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of personality disorders 2007-04, Vol.21 (2), p.179-198
Main Authors: MORSE, Jennifer Q, PILKONIS, Paul A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Adult and adolescent clinical studies
Antisocial Personality Disorder - classification
Antisocial Personality Disorder - diagnosis
Biological and medical sciences
Female
Forensic Psychiatry - methods
Humans
Internal-External Control
Interpersonal Relationship
Labor intensive
Male
Medical sciences
Mental Disorders
Middle Aged
Models, Psychological
Patients
Personality
Personality disorders
Personality Problems
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychometrics
Psychopathology
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Ratings & rankings
Raw Scores
Screening Tests
Self-Assessment
Severity of Illness Index
Temperament
University students
Validity
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:A brief but valid self-report measure to screen for personality disorders (PDs) would be a valuable tool in making decisions about further assessment and in planning optimal treatments. In psychiatric and nonpsychiatric samples, we compared the validity of three screening measures: the PD scales from the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, a self-report version of the Iowa Personality Disorder Screen, and the selfdirectedness scale of the Temperament and Character Inventory. Despite their different theoretical origins, the screeners were highly correlated in a range from .71 to .77. As a result, the use of multiple screeners was not a significant improvement over any individual screener, and no single screener stood out as clearly superior to the others. Each performed modestly in predicting the presence of any PD diagnosis in both the psychiatric and nonpsychiatric groups. Performance was best when predicting a more severe PD diagnosis in the psychiatric sample. The results also highlight the potential value of multiple assessments when relying on self-reports.
ISSN:0885-579X
1943-2763
DOI:10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.179