首页> 外文期刊>Journal of consulting and clinical psychology >Convergent and incremental predictive validity of clinician, self-report, and structured interview diagnoses for personality disorders over 5 years
【24h】

Convergent and incremental predictive validity of clinician, self-report, and structured interview diagnoses for personality disorders over 5 years

机译:临床医生,自我报告和结构化面试诊断对人格障碍的收敛性和增量式预测有效性超过5年

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Objective: Research has demonstrated poor agreement between clinician-assigned personality disorder (PD) diagnoses and those generated by self-report questionnaires and semistructured diagnostic interviews. No research has compared prospectively the predictive validity of these methods. We investigated the convergence of these 3 diagnostic methods and tested their relative and incremental validity in predicting independent, multimethod assessments of psychosocial functioning performed prospectively over 5 years. Method: Participants were 320 patients in the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study diagnosed with PDs by therapist, self-report, and semistructured interview at baseline. We examined the relative incremental validity of therapists' naturalistic ratings relative to these other diagnostic methods for predicting psychosocial functioning at 5-year follow-up. Results: Hierarchical linear regression analyses revealed that both the self-report questionnaire and semistructured interview PD diagnoses had significant incremental predictive validity over the PD diagnoses assigned by a treating clinician. Although, in some cases, the clinicians' ratings for individual PDs did have validity for predicting subsequent functioning, they did not generally provide incremental prediction beyond the other methods. These findings remained robust in a series of analyses restricted to a subsample of therapist ratings based on clinical contact of 1 year or greater. Conclusions: These results from a large clinical sample echo previous research documenting limited agreement between clinicians' naturalistic PD diagnoses and those from self-report and semistructured interview methods. They extend prior work by providing the first evidence about the relative predictive validity of these different methods. Our findings challenge the validity of naturalistic PD diagnoses and suggest the use of structured diagnostic instruments.
机译:目的:研究表明,临床医师分配的人格障碍(PD)诊断与自我报告问卷和半结构性诊断访谈所产生的诊断之间的一致性差。尚无研究对这些方法的预测有效性进行前瞻性比较。我们调查了这三种诊断方法的收敛性,并测试了它们在预测未来5年内对社会心理功能进行的独立,多方法评估中的相对和增量有效性。方法:参加者为“协作性纵向人格障碍研究”中的320例患者,基线时通过治疗师,自我报告和半结构式访谈诊断为PD。我们检查了相对于这些其他诊断方法在5年随访中预测心理社会功能的治疗师自然主义评分的相对增量有效性。结果:分层线性回归分析显示,自我报告调查表和半结构访谈PD诊断与治疗医师指定的PD诊断相比具有显着的递增预测效度。尽管在某些情况下,临床医生对单个PD的评分确实可以预测后续功能,但他们通常无法提供其他方法以外的增量预测。这些结果在一系列分析中仍然很可靠,这些分析仅限于基于1年或更长时间的临床接触的治疗师评级子样本。结论:来自大量临床样本的这些结果与先前的研究结果相吻合,先前的研究记录了临床医师自然主义的PD诊断与自我报告和半结构化访谈方法之间的有限一致性。他们通过提供有关这些不同方法的相对预测有效性的第一个证据来扩展先前的工作。我们的发现挑战了自然主义PD诊断的有效性,并建议使用结构化诊断工具。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号