预测非自杀性自伤和自杀风险:精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版第二部分人格障碍与人格障碍替代模式的比较。

A. Somma, Giulia Gialdi, Robert F. Krueger, K. Markon, A. Fossati
{"title":"预测非自杀性自伤和自杀风险:精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版第二部分人格障碍与人格障碍替代模式的比较。","authors":"A. Somma, Giulia Gialdi, Robert F. Krueger, K. Markon, A. Fossati","doi":"10.1037/per0000658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The clinical relevance of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) has received growing recognition, and NSSI represents a relevant risk factor for suicide. The present study aimed at running a head-to-head comparison between interview scores of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Section II personality disorders (PDs) criteria, and DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) Criterion A and Criterion B measures in providing significant and relevant information for understanding NSSI and suicidal ideation and behavior among psychotherapy participants. To this aim, a clinical sample of 103 adult participants was administered the Clinician-Administered Nonsuicidal Self-Injury Disorder Index (CANDI), the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), as well as the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders, the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I, and a self-report measure of dysfunctional personality traits (i.e., the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5]). Logistic ordinal regression dominance analysis results showed that, when compared to the 10 DSM-5 Section II PD symptom counts, the DSM-5 Section III PD measure scores provided the same amount of information in the CANDI Global Severity Index scores (Nagelkerke pseudo-R² value = .41), and a markedly larger information quantity in the case of the C-SSRS Suicidal Ideation (+35.1%), and Suicidal Behavior Index (+35.9%) levels. As a whole, our data suggested the clinical usefulness of the DSM-5 AMPD in understanding NSSI and suicidal ideation and behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predicting nonsuicidal self-injury and suicidal risk: A comparison between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition Section II personality disorder and alternative model of personality disorders dimensions.\",\"authors\":\"A. Somma, Giulia Gialdi, Robert F. Krueger, K. Markon, A. Fossati\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000658\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The clinical relevance of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) has received growing recognition, and NSSI represents a relevant risk factor for suicide. The present study aimed at running a head-to-head comparison between interview scores of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Section II personality disorders (PDs) criteria, and DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) Criterion A and Criterion B measures in providing significant and relevant information for understanding NSSI and suicidal ideation and behavior among psychotherapy participants. To this aim, a clinical sample of 103 adult participants was administered the Clinician-Administered Nonsuicidal Self-Injury Disorder Index (CANDI), the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), as well as the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders, the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I, and a self-report measure of dysfunctional personality traits (i.e., the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5]). Logistic ordinal regression dominance analysis results showed that, when compared to the 10 DSM-5 Section II PD symptom counts, the DSM-5 Section III PD measure scores provided the same amount of information in the CANDI Global Severity Index scores (Nagelkerke pseudo-R² value = .41), and a markedly larger information quantity in the case of the C-SSRS Suicidal Ideation (+35.1%), and Suicidal Behavior Index (+35.9%) levels. As a whole, our data suggested the clinical usefulness of the DSM-5 AMPD in understanding NSSI and suicidal ideation and behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"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/per0000658\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非自杀性自伤(NSSI)的临床相关性已得到越来越多的认可,非自杀性自伤是自杀的一个相关风险因素。本研究旨在对《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)第二部分人格障碍(PDs)标准的访谈得分与DSM-5人格障碍替代模式(AMPD)标准A和标准B的测量结果进行正面比较,为了解心理治疗参与者的NSSI和自杀意念及行为提供重要的相关信息。为此,研究人员对 103 名成年参与者的临床样本进行了临床医师管理的非自杀性自伤障碍指数(CANDI)、哥伦比亚自杀严重程度评定量表(C-SSRS)、DSM-5 人格障碍结构化临床访谈、DSM-5 人格障碍替代模式模块 I 结构化临床访谈以及功能失调人格特质自我报告测量(即 DSM-5 人格量表 [PID-5])。逻辑顺序回归优势分析结果显示,与10个DSM-5第二部分PD症状计数相比,DSM-5第三部分PD测量得分在CANDI全球严重程度指数得分中提供了相同的信息量(Nagelkerke伪R²值=0.41),而在C-SSRS自杀意念(+35.1%)和自杀行为指数(+35.9%)水平上提供的信息量明显更大。总体而言,我们的数据表明,DSM-5 AMPD 在理解 NSSI 和自杀意念与行为方面具有临床实用性。(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。
Predicting nonsuicidal self-injury and suicidal risk: A comparison between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition Section II personality disorder and alternative model of personality disorders dimensions.
The clinical relevance of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) has received growing recognition, and NSSI represents a relevant risk factor for suicide. The present study aimed at running a head-to-head comparison between interview scores of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Section II personality disorders (PDs) criteria, and DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) Criterion A and Criterion B measures in providing significant and relevant information for understanding NSSI and suicidal ideation and behavior among psychotherapy participants. To this aim, a clinical sample of 103 adult participants was administered the Clinician-Administered Nonsuicidal Self-Injury Disorder Index (CANDI), the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), as well as the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders, the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I, and a self-report measure of dysfunctional personality traits (i.e., the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5]). Logistic ordinal regression dominance analysis results showed that, when compared to the 10 DSM-5 Section II PD symptom counts, the DSM-5 Section III PD measure scores provided the same amount of information in the CANDI Global Severity Index scores (Nagelkerke pseudo-R² value = .41), and a markedly larger information quantity in the case of the C-SSRS Suicidal Ideation (+35.1%), and Suicidal Behavior Index (+35.9%) levels. As a whole, our data suggested the clinical usefulness of the DSM-5 AMPD in understanding NSSI and suicidal ideation and behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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