Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) diagnosis with the self-report Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire–4+(PDQ-4+): confirmation of the 3-factor structure (original) (raw)
Related papers
Psychiatry Research, 2011
The diagnostic criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) are heterogeneous, and include an admixture of personality traits, behaviours, and symptoms. The BPD DSM factor structure has been extensively studied, even though results are not consistent. In this study we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to compare the five-factor model reported by Oldham, a three-factor model, and a unidimensional model of BPD diagnosis criteria. This study validates the findings of previous studies by performing a CFA with the DSM-IV BPD criteria and information derived from the DIB-R. A sample of 338 patients referred to our outpatient BPD program participated in the study. Results of the CFA support both the hypothesized unidimensional and the three-factor models, whereas the five-factor model was not confirmed. However, the three-factor model fits better than the unidimensional model. Thus, although the DSM-IV BPD criteria conceptualize BPD as a unidimensional structure, our results give support to the idea that the three-factor model could offer a better approach to further improve the current treatment of BPD, as well as lead to a better understanding of its ethiopathogenesis and comorbidity analysis.
2014
Results: The results indicate that there is a positive significant relationship between neuroticism (N) with emotional lability (r=0.34, P<0.01), anxiousness (r=0.286, P<0.01) and impulsivity (r=0.229, P<0.05). Also, there is a significant relationship between openness (O) and emotional lability (r=0.316, P<0.01) and risk taking (r=0.193, P<0.05), and negative relation with impulsivity (r=-0.244, P<0.01), separation insecurity(r=0.194, P<0.05), and depressivity (r=0.19, P<0.05). In addition, results showed that there is positive significant relationship between FFM and DSM-5 personality traits with DSM-IV-TR BPD symptoms (P< 0.01). Conclusion: Results were in line with findings from previous studies and were explained in part by considering how facets/traits of the FFM and DSM-5 personality traits map onto the concept of BPD. Also, the present study helps understand the adequacy of dimensional approach to evaluate personality pathology, specifically on Ira...
The purpose of this ex post facto study is to analyze the personality profile of outpatients who met criteria for borderline personality disorder according to the Five-Factor Model of personality. All patients (N = 52) completed the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE) Screening Questionnaire, the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS). The results show a high comorbidity with other DSM-IV-TR Axis II disorders, in particular with those from Cluster C. The BFQ average score indicates that the outpatients who met borderline criteria score lower than controls on all five dimensions, and especially on emotional stability. Correlations were computed between the BFQ and the IPDE scales in our sample. These results suggest that specific personality profile are linked to different comorbidity patterns. More than a half of our sample has clinically significant scores on Beck's scales. Surprisingly, depress...
Objective: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a highly prevalent diagnosis in mental health care and includes a heterogeneous constellation of symptoms. As the field of personality disorder (PD) research moves to emphasize dimensional traits in its operationalization, it is important to determine how the alternative DSM-5 Section III personality trait dimensions differentiates such features in BPD patients versus comparison groups. To date no study has attempted such validation. Method: The current study examined the utility of the DSM-5 trait dimensions in differentiating patients with the categorical DSM-IV/5 diagnosis of BPD (n = 101) from systematically matched samples of other PD patients (n = 101) and healthy controls (n = 101). This was investigated using one-way ANOVA and multinomial logistic regression analyses. Results: Results indicated that Emotional Lability, Risk Taking, and Suspiciousness uniquely differentiated BPD patients from other PD patients, whereas Emotional Lability, Depressivity, and Suspiciousness uniquely differentiated BPD patients from healthy controls. Conclusion: Emotional Lability is in particular a key BPD feature of the proposed Section III model, whereas Suspiciousness also augments essential BPD features. Provided that these findings are replicated cross-culturally in forthcoming research, a more parsimonious traits operationalization of BPD features is warranted.
Exploring the clinical validity of borderline personality disorder components
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 2013
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is recognized as a complex syndrome, resulting in a heterogeneous diagnostic category. Besides the characteristics of the disorder itself, comorbid disorders play an important role in this complexity. The aim of the study is to analyze the clinical validity of 3 components for BPD Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria-called affective dysregulation, behavioral dysregulation, and disturbed relatedness-investigating differences in patterns of comorbidity. For this purpose, 365 patients with suspected BPD were included in the study. To test our hypothesis, patients were classified into 5 clusters using a K-cluster analysis to study the clinical validity of the 3 components based on the 3-factor model of BPD. Differences in comorbidity, previous suicide attempts, and self-harm behaviors among the defined clusters were analyzed. Between-cluster differences were observed for Axis I and Axis II disorders as well as in the frequency of suicide attempts and in self-harm behaviors. The study of BPD based on the 3 components seems to be more useful than the study of BPD as a unitary construct to help further our understanding of this complex disorder. In the present study, the 3 BPD components have allowed us to analyze the complex comorbidity of BPD patients. This solution could be considered an interesting way to clarify BPD etiology, diagnosis, and treatment efficacy.
Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
A new approach to mental disorder taxonomy was recently proposed, the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). The aim of this study was to develop a specific version of the Dimensional Clinical Personality Inventory 2 (IDCP-2), a self-reported measure developed in Brazil for use in pathological personality traits assessment, focused on the assessment of traits related to BPD in accordance with the HiTOP model. In step 1 we developed new factors to cover all traits of BPD according to HiTOP. In step 2, data were collected from 207 adults from the community (N = 207; M age = 35.9). Participants completed the developed measure (IDCP Borderline Personality Disorder Scale; IDCP-BPD), and selected factors from IDCP-2, PID-5, FFBI and FFHI. Exploratory structural equation modeling (E-SEM) suggested a 3-factors solution for the grouping of the fifteen factors of the IDCP-BPD. Factors and total score reliability was good. Correlations between IDCP-BPD factors and external measures were coherent, corroborating our expectations. The bootstrap two-sample t-test comparing the healthy and pathological groups suggested good discrimination capacity of the IDCP-BPD factors, mainly the Fragility and Impotence feelings factors. Favorable evidence was found for the use of IDCP-BPD to BPD traits measurement. The new factors extend the coverage of IDCP-2 in measuring BPD symptoms. Correlations suggest that IDCP-BPD factors measure the traits considered as relevant according to HiTOP. Discriminant capacity of the factors also supports the use of the measure, although future studies must replicate this in samples composed of BPD patients.
Personality and Individual Differences, 2009
This study explored reliability and validity of three self-report screening measures of borderline personality disorder (BPD): the Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features Scale (PAI-BOR; Morey, 1991), Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4-BPD scale (PDQ4-BPD; Hyler, 1994) and Mclean Screening Instrument for BPD (MSI-BPD;. Participants (N = 523) were drawn predominantly from community and student populations. All three measures were internally consistent. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the PAI-BOR did not support Jackson and Trull's (2001) six-factor structure or Morey's (1991) four-factor structure. The three measures converged highly, despite the broader theoretical basis of the PAI-BOR. Expected demographic differences on the measures supported construct validity, and concurrent validity in relation to theoretical-related criteria was also supported. Only the PAI-BOR and PDQ4-BPD showed incremental validity in predicting specific criteria, although, the amount of unique variance predicted was small.