Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.

Personality disorders Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-03 DOI:10.1037/per0000637
Laura C Weekers, Joost Hutsebaut, Jenneke M C Rovers, Jan H Kamphuis
{"title":"Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.","authors":"Laura C Weekers, Joost Hutsebaut, Jenneke M C Rovers, Jan H Kamphuis","doi":"10.1037/per0000637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study investigated the predictive validity of Criterion A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) compared to the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) model in predicting patient outcomes 1 year after initial assessment, in a hetero-method longitudinal design. A clinical sample of 84 participants were administered both traditional Section II and AMPD interviews by two independent interviewers. One year after assessment, disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) and symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory) were assessed. The Section II PD model did not predict disability (<i>R</i>² = .01) nor symptom severity (<i>R</i>² = .03). The AMPD model, on the other hand, predicted both disability (<i>R</i>² = .23) and symptom severity (<i>R</i>² = .29) 1-year postinitial assessment. Both Criterion A and B were significant predictors, but when jointly combined only Criterion A remained significantly predictive of both disability and symptom severity while Criterion B did not. Criterion A thus appears to capture core vulnerabilities of personality-disordered patients that are related to future functioning and symptom severity. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":" ","pages":"101-109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","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/per0000637","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study investigated the predictive validity of Criterion A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) compared to the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) model in predicting patient outcomes 1 year after initial assessment, in a hetero-method longitudinal design. A clinical sample of 84 participants were administered both traditional Section II and AMPD interviews by two independent interviewers. One year after assessment, disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) and symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory) were assessed. The Section II PD model did not predict disability (R² = .01) nor symptom severity (R² = .03). The AMPD model, on the other hand, predicted both disability (R² = .23) and symptom severity (R² = .29) 1-year postinitial assessment. Both Criterion A and B were significant predictors, but when jointly combined only Criterion A remained significantly predictive of both disability and symptom severity while Criterion B did not. Criterion A thus appears to capture core vulnerabilities of personality-disordered patients that are related to future functioning and symptom severity. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

人格障碍替代模型与第二部分人格障碍模型在预测患者 1 年后预后方面的正面比较。
本研究采用异种方法纵向设计,调查了人格障碍替代模型(AMPD)的标准 A 和 B 与 DSM-5 第二部分人格障碍(PD)模型相比,在预测患者初次评估一年后的结果方面的预测有效性。由两名独立访谈员对 84 名临床样本进行了传统的第二部分和 AMPD 访谈。评估一年后,对残疾程度(世界卫生组织残疾评估表 2.0)和症状严重程度(简明症状量表)进行了评估。第二部分肢体残疾模型不能预测残疾程度(R² = 0.01),也不能预测症状严重程度(R² = 0.03)。而 AMPD 模型则能预测初次评估后 1 年的残疾程度(R² = .23)和症状严重程度(R² = .29)。标准 A 和标准 B 都是显著的预测因子,但当两者联合使用时,只有标准 A 仍能显著预测残疾和症状严重程度,而标准 B 则不能。因此,标准 A 似乎捕捉到了人格障碍患者与未来功能和症状严重程度相关的核心弱点。本文讨论了其对临床实践的意义。(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