人格障碍定式临床会谈量表(第2版)与人格诊断问卷对比分析

摘要

Objective To study the comparability of two personality diagnostic instruments(SCID-Ⅱ and PDQ-4)in psychiatric patients. Methods One hundred and twelve mental disorder patients were investigated with the SCID-Ⅱ and PDQ-4. Results 1)Significant differences were found between groups(dividing by total scores on PDQ-4)by means of SCID-Ⅱ interviews(P＜0. 0 1). 2)Categorical personality disorder(PD)groups by means of SCID-Ⅱ interviews had hisher scores on PDQ-4 than their related non-PD groups. 3)For agreement on categorical diagnoses between SCID-Ⅱ and PDQ-4, the correlation coefficients varied from 0. 17 to 0. 57. Except for antisocial PD(r=0. 57), the others had poor-fair coefficients, as r＜0. 50. Conclusions In general, there is some correlation between SCID-Ⅱ and PDQ-4. Low agreement between PDQ-4 and SCID-Ⅱ is observed for categorical PD evaluations. Thus, PDQ-4 can't be a substitute tool for SCID-Ⅱ.%目的 探讨人格诊断问卷人格障碍定式临床会谈量表(SCID-Ⅱ)(第2版)和PDQ-4两种工具的相关性和差异.方法 对112例精神障碍患者进行量表评定及相关的统计分析.结果 (1)按PDQ-4总分分组,组间根据SCID-Ⅱ诊断为人格障碍的例数,其差异具有显著性(P＜0.01).(2)SCID-Ⅱ各型人格障碍组PDQ-4得分均高于无该型人格障碍组.(3)对于人格障碍的分型诊断,SCID-Ⅱ与PDQ-4的相关系数r为0.17～0.57,除反社会型r=0.57外,其余各型相关系数(r＜0.50).结论 总体上SCID-Ⅱ与PDQ-4具有一定的相关性,但PDQ-4与SCID-Ⅱ对人格障碍的分型诊断一致性较差,PDQ-4不能代替定式问卷SCID-Ⅱ来诊断人格障碍.