Assessing International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision (ICD-11) borderline psychopathology: Psychometric validation of the German Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS) in a psychiatric sample.

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Julia Kroener, Maxim Fischer, Zrinka Sosic-Vasic
{"title":"Assessing International Classification of Diseases, 11th revision (ICD-11) borderline psychopathology: Psychometric validation of the German Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS) in a psychiatric sample.","authors":"Julia Kroener, Maxim Fischer, Zrinka Sosic-Vasic","doi":"10.1037/pas0001499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The <i>11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases</i> introduced a dimensional model of personality disorder diagnosis supplemented by an optional borderline pattern qualifier. The Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS; Oltmanns & Widiger, 2019) is a self-report instrument assessing this qualifier via four symptom clusters: affective instability, maladaptive self-functioning, maladaptive interpersonal functioning, and maladaptive self-regulation strategies. This study translated, adapted, and validated the BPS for German-speaking clinical populations (<i>N</i> = 405) using a back-translation procedure. Psychometric evaluation included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and factor structure analyses (parallel analysis, exploratory graph analysis) confirmatory factor analysis, as well as construct validity via correlations with the Borderline Symptom List-23 and the Structured Clinical Interview for <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</i>, Fifth Edition Screening Personality Questionnaire. Receiver operating characteristic analyses assessed classification accuracy for clinician-assigned borderline personality disorder diagnoses. Results demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α¯ = .89) and test-retest reliability (r = .87). Exploratory graph analysis indicated a robust unidimensional structure, while confirmatory factor analysis supported a hierarchical four-factor model with incremental validity over a unidimensional solution. BPS total scores showed strong convergent validity with the Borderline Symptom List-23 and discriminant validity against nonborderline personality disorder scales. Receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed good classification accuracy (area under the curve = .82), with optimal cutoffs balancing sensitivity and specificity. German BPS scores demonstrate reliability and support multiple sources of validity evidence for their intended interpretation as measures of the <i>11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases</i> borderline pattern severity. The low internal consistency of the Maladaptive Interpersonal Functioning subscale (ᾰ = .41) warrants caution; the BPS total score is psychometrically preferable for most purposes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001499","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases introduced a dimensional model of personality disorder diagnosis supplemented by an optional borderline pattern qualifier. The Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS; Oltmanns & Widiger, 2019) is a self-report instrument assessing this qualifier via four symptom clusters: affective instability, maladaptive self-functioning, maladaptive interpersonal functioning, and maladaptive self-regulation strategies. This study translated, adapted, and validated the BPS for German-speaking clinical populations (N = 405) using a back-translation procedure. Psychometric evaluation included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and factor structure analyses (parallel analysis, exploratory graph analysis) confirmatory factor analysis, as well as construct validity via correlations with the Borderline Symptom List-23 and the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition Screening Personality Questionnaire. Receiver operating characteristic analyses assessed classification accuracy for clinician-assigned borderline personality disorder diagnoses. Results demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α¯ = .89) and test-retest reliability (r = .87). Exploratory graph analysis indicated a robust unidimensional structure, while confirmatory factor analysis supported a hierarchical four-factor model with incremental validity over a unidimensional solution. BPS total scores showed strong convergent validity with the Borderline Symptom List-23 and discriminant validity against nonborderline personality disorder scales. Receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed good classification accuracy (area under the curve = .82), with optimal cutoffs balancing sensitivity and specificity. German BPS scores demonstrate reliability and support multiple sources of validity evidence for their intended interpretation as measures of the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases borderline pattern severity. The low internal consistency of the Maladaptive Interpersonal Functioning subscale (ᾰ = .41) warrants caution; the BPS total score is psychometrically preferable for most purposes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

评估国际疾病分类第11版(ICD-11)边缘精神病理学:精神病学样本中德国边缘模式量表(BPS)的心理测量学验证。
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
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书