Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Psychol Med. 2012 Mar;42(3):657-67. doi: 10.1017/S0033291711001632. Epub 2011 Aug 24.

Concordance between personality disorder assessment methods.

Author information

  • 1Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. gnestadt@jhmi.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Studies have criticized the low level of agreement between the various methods of personality disorder (PD) assessment. This is an important issue for research and clinical purposes.

METHOD:

Seven hundred and forty-two participants in the Hopkins Epidemiology of Personality Disorders Study (HEPS) were assessed on two occasions using the Personality Disorder Schedule (PDS) and the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). The concordance between the two diagnostic methods for all DSM-IV PDs was assessed using standard methods and also two item response analytic approaches designed to take account of measurement error: a latent trait-based approach and a generalized estimating equations (GEE)-based approach, with post-hoc adjustment.

RESULTS:

Raw criteria counts, using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), κ and odds ratio (OR), showed poor concordance. The more refined statistical methods showed a moderate to moderately high level of concordance between the methods for most PDs studied. Overall, the PDS produced lower prevalences of traits but higher precision of measurement than the IPDE. Specific criteria within each PD showed varying endorsement thresholds and precision for ascertaining the disorder.

CONCLUSIONS:

Concordance in the raw measurement of the individual PD criteria between the two clinical methods is lacking. However, based on two statistical methods that adjust for differential endorsement thresholds and measurement error in the assessments, we deduce that the PD constructs themselves can be measured with a moderate degree of confidence regardless of the clinical approach used. This may suggest that the individual criteria for each PD are, in and of themselves, less specific for diagnosis, but as a group the criteria for each PD usefully identify specific PD constructs.

PMID:
21861952
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC3698972
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Cambridge University Press Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk