比较用于测量人格障碍新诊断方法的人格测量的可理解性。

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Ashmita Ghosh, Nathaniel L Phillips, Kaela Van Til, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller
{"title":"比较用于测量人格障碍新诊断方法的人格测量的可理解性。","authors":"Ashmita Ghosh, Nathaniel L Phillips, Kaela Van Til, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller","doi":"10.1080/00223891.2025.2491491","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the fifth edition of the <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</i> (<i>DSM-5</i>), an Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) was proposed that considers the severity of impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and elevations in five pathological personality traits (Criterion B) as the primary diagnostic criteria. The present study examined whether self-report measures of personality impairment are longer, more complex, difficult, and require more introspection than items from measures of pathological personality traits. Participants from two undergraduate university research pools (<i>N</i> = 460) completed two measures of personality impairment and one measure of pathological personality traits. For all measures, participants rated item difficulty and introspection needed to answer each item. Additionally, the study compared the readability statistics of each measure automatically calculated by Microsoft Word. Results indicated that personality trait measures were significantly easier to read than personality impairment measures, and that answering personality trait items required less perceived introspection compared to personality impairment items; however, no significant differences were found in the perceived difficulty of items across measures. These results provide the first empirical examination of differences between personality trait and impairment measures in terms of readability statistics and participant perceptions of difficulty of items and required introspection.</p>","PeriodicalId":16707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Comprehensibility of Personality Measures Used to Measure New Diagnostic Approaches to Personality Disorders.\",\"authors\":\"Ashmita Ghosh, Nathaniel L Phillips, Kaela Van Til, Donald R Lynam, Joshua D Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00223891.2025.2491491\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the fifth edition of the <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</i> (<i>DSM-5</i>), an Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) was proposed that considers the severity of impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and elevations in five pathological personality traits (Criterion B) as the primary diagnostic criteria. The present study examined whether self-report measures of personality impairment are longer, more complex, difficult, and require more introspection than items from measures of pathological personality traits. Participants from two undergraduate university research pools (<i>N</i> = 460) completed two measures of personality impairment and one measure of pathological personality traits. For all measures, participants rated item difficulty and introspection needed to answer each item. Additionally, the study compared the readability statistics of each measure automatically calculated by Microsoft Word. Results indicated that personality trait measures were significantly easier to read than personality impairment measures, and that answering personality trait items required less perceived introspection compared to personality impairment items; however, no significant differences were found in the perceived difficulty of items across measures. These results provide the first empirical examination of differences between personality trait and impairment measures in terms of readability statistics and participant perceptions of difficulty of items and required introspection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of personality assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of personality assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2025.2491491\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2025.2491491","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在第五版《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》(DSM-5)中,提出了一种替代性人格障碍模型(AMPD),该模型将人格功能障碍的严重程度(标准A)和五种病态人格特征的升高(标准B)作为主要诊断标准。本研究考察了人格损伤的自我报告测量是否比病态人格特征的测量更长、更复杂、更困难、需要更多的内省。来自两个本科大学研究小组的参与者(N = 460)完成了两项人格损害测试和一项病态人格特征测试。在所有的测试中,参与者对每个问题的难度和回答每个问题所需的自省进行了打分。此外,本研究还比较了由Microsoft Word自动计算的每个度量的可读性统计数据。结果表明,人格特质量表比人格障碍量表更容易阅读,且回答人格特质题比回答人格障碍题需要更少的自省感知;然而,在不同测量的项目感知难度上没有发现显著差异。这些结果首次提供了在可读性统计和参与者对项目难度和所需自省的感知方面人格特质和损害测量之间差异的实证检验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Comprehensibility of Personality Measures Used to Measure New Diagnostic Approaches to Personality Disorders.

In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), an Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) was proposed that considers the severity of impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and elevations in five pathological personality traits (Criterion B) as the primary diagnostic criteria. The present study examined whether self-report measures of personality impairment are longer, more complex, difficult, and require more introspection than items from measures of pathological personality traits. Participants from two undergraduate university research pools (N = 460) completed two measures of personality impairment and one measure of pathological personality traits. For all measures, participants rated item difficulty and introspection needed to answer each item. Additionally, the study compared the readability statistics of each measure automatically calculated by Microsoft Word. Results indicated that personality trait measures were significantly easier to read than personality impairment measures, and that answering personality trait items required less perceived introspection compared to personality impairment items; however, no significant differences were found in the perceived difficulty of items across measures. These results provide the first empirical examination of differences between personality trait and impairment measures in terms of readability statistics and participant perceptions of difficulty of items and required introspection.

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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA) primarily publishes articles dealing with the development, evaluation, refinement, and application of personality assessment methods. Desirable articles address empirical, theoretical, instructional, or professional aspects of using psychological tests, interview data, or the applied clinical assessment process. They also advance the measurement, description, or understanding of personality, psychopathology, and human behavior. JPA is broadly concerned with developing and using personality assessment methods in clinical, counseling, forensic, and health psychology settings; with the assessment process in applied clinical practice; with the assessment of people of all ages and cultures; and with both normal and abnormal personality functioning.
×
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