Agreement and discrepancies in patient-clinician reports of DSM-5-TR section III maladaptive personality traits: A study on a mixed outpatient sample.

Personality disorders Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-27 DOI:10.1037/per0000639
Gioia Bottesi, Corrado Caudek, Anna Malerba, Gabriele Caselli, Gabriella Gallo, Gabriele Melli, Nicola Marsigli, Alessia Offredi, Claudio Sica
{"title":"Agreement and discrepancies in patient-clinician reports of DSM-5-TR section III maladaptive personality traits: A study on a mixed outpatient sample.","authors":"Gioia Bottesi, Corrado Caudek, Anna Malerba, Gabriele Caselli, Gabriella Gallo, Gabriele Melli, Nicola Marsigli, Alessia Offredi, Claudio Sica","doi":"10.1037/per0000639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The assessment of personality pathology based on dimensional models may improve self-other agreement, but previous research mainly adopted a categorical approach and overlooked the role of the person of the therapist. Our study examined patient-clinician agreement in a mixed sample of Italian outpatients using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and the PID-5-Informant Form (PID-5-IRF). Moreover, the role of clinician personality traits on agreement was preliminary explored. Sixty-eight outpatients (51.4% male, <i>M</i> = 30.30, <i>SD</i> = 12.05 years) and their treating clinicians (<i>N</i> = 22; 77.3% female, <i>M</i> = 43.77 ± 8.45 years) entered the study. Patients completed the PID-5, whereas clinicians filled-in the PID-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF) and the PID-5-IRF for each patient they involved. A multilevel Bayesian analysis showed that rank-order agreement was large for domains (mean <i>r</i> = .60) and moderate for facets (mean <i>r</i> = .44). As regards mean-level agreement, patient ratings on cognitive/perceptual dysregulation, distractibility, eccentricity, and emotional lability were higher than clinician ratings, whereas patients' scores on depressivity were lower than clinicians' ones. Scores on the PID-5-BF detachment positively predicted agreement on anhedonia, anxiousness, depressivity, distractibility, separation insecurity, and suspiciousness, while scores on the PID-5-BF negative affectivity, antagonism, and disinhibition negatively predicted agreement on few specific facets. Current findings suggest that clinician personality traits may contribute to agreement on maladaptive personality traits, but areas of discrepancies remain in case of low observable internal ones. Since patient-clinician agreement is crucially involved in therapeutic alliance, further research on this issue is highly encouraged. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":" ","pages":"94-99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000639","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The assessment of personality pathology based on dimensional models may improve self-other agreement, but previous research mainly adopted a categorical approach and overlooked the role of the person of the therapist. Our study examined patient-clinician agreement in a mixed sample of Italian outpatients using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and the PID-5-Informant Form (PID-5-IRF). Moreover, the role of clinician personality traits on agreement was preliminary explored. Sixty-eight outpatients (51.4% male, M = 30.30, SD = 12.05 years) and their treating clinicians (N = 22; 77.3% female, M = 43.77 ± 8.45 years) entered the study. Patients completed the PID-5, whereas clinicians filled-in the PID-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF) and the PID-5-IRF for each patient they involved. A multilevel Bayesian analysis showed that rank-order agreement was large for domains (mean r = .60) and moderate for facets (mean r = .44). As regards mean-level agreement, patient ratings on cognitive/perceptual dysregulation, distractibility, eccentricity, and emotional lability were higher than clinician ratings, whereas patients' scores on depressivity were lower than clinicians' ones. Scores on the PID-5-BF detachment positively predicted agreement on anhedonia, anxiousness, depressivity, distractibility, separation insecurity, and suspiciousness, while scores on the PID-5-BF negative affectivity, antagonism, and disinhibition negatively predicted agreement on few specific facets. Current findings suggest that clinician personality traits may contribute to agreement on maladaptive personality traits, but areas of discrepancies remain in case of low observable internal ones. Since patient-clinician agreement is crucially involved in therapeutic alliance, further research on this issue is highly encouraged. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

DSM-5-TR 第三部分适应不良人格特质的患者-医生报告中的一致与差异:门诊病人混合样本研究。
基于维度模型的人格病理学评估可提高自我与他人的一致性,但以往的研究主要采用分类方法,忽略了治疗师个人的作用。我们的研究使用 DSM-5 人格量表(PID-5)和 PID-5-Informant Form(PID-5-IRF)对意大利门诊患者的混合样本进行了患者与临床医生一致性的研究。此外,还初步探讨了临床医生的人格特质对一致性的影响。68名门诊患者(51.4%为男性,M = 30.30,SD = 12.05岁)及其主治临床医生(N = 22;77.3%为女性,M = 43.77 ± 8.45岁)参与了研究。患者填写 PID-5,临床医生填写 PID-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF) 和 PID-5-IRF 。多层次贝叶斯分析表明,对于领域(平均 r = 0.60)和面(平均 r = 0.44),等级顺序的一致性很大。就平均水平的一致性而言,患者对认知/知觉失调、注意力分散、偏心和情绪不稳的评分高于临床医生的评分,而患者对抑郁的评分低于临床医生的评分。PID-5-BF疏离度的得分可以正面预测患者在失乐症、焦虑、抑郁、注意力分散、分离不安全感和多疑等方面的一致性,而PID-5-BF负性情感、对抗性和抑制性的得分可以负面预测患者在几个特定方面的一致性。目前的研究结果表明,临床医生的人格特质可能有助于在适应不良的人格特质上达成一致,但在可观察到的内部人格特质较低的情况下,仍存在差异。由于患者与临床医生之间的共识在治疗联盟中起着至关重要的作用,因此我们非常鼓励就这一问题开展进一步的研究。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信