比较AMPD与对象关系理论用于人格障碍评估的神经网络方法。

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Azad Hemmati, Amin Nazari, Carla Sharp, Saeid Komasi
{"title":"比较AMPD与对象关系理论用于人格障碍评估的神经网络方法。","authors":"Azad Hemmati, Amin Nazari, Carla Sharp, Saeid Komasi","doi":"10.1080/00223891.2025.2545323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While prior research has explored the relationship between Object Relations Theory (ORT) and the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), comprehensive comparisons across diverse clinical populations and methodologies remain limited. This study investigated the predictive accuracy of AMPD and ORT in identifying personality psychopathology using neural network models within a mixed sample of 639 participants (229 non-clinical undergraduates, 410 psychiatric inpatients). Data were collected using Persian translations of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) (AMPD measures), and the Structured Interview of Personality Organization-Revised (STIPO-R) (ORT measure). Results indicated significant differences in all subscales of both models between clinical and non-clinical groups. Notably, the borderline personality disorder group showed elevated scores on specific STIPO-R subscales and all AMPD constructs except empathy. Neural network models achieved over 65% accuracy in predicting group membership, with AMPD slightly surpassing ORT (66%+ vs. 65%+). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated high sensitivity for both models, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.79 to 0.94. These findings underscore the significant utility of both AMPD and ORT for the assessment, early identification, and diagnosis of personality disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":16707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Neural Network Approach to Comparing AMPD and Object Relations Theory for Personality Disorder Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Azad Hemmati, Amin Nazari, Carla Sharp, Saeid Komasi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00223891.2025.2545323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While prior research has explored the relationship between Object Relations Theory (ORT) and the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), comprehensive comparisons across diverse clinical populations and methodologies remain limited. This study investigated the predictive accuracy of AMPD and ORT in identifying personality psychopathology using neural network models within a mixed sample of 639 participants (229 non-clinical undergraduates, 410 psychiatric inpatients). Data were collected using Persian translations of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) (AMPD measures), and the Structured Interview of Personality Organization-Revised (STIPO-R) (ORT measure). Results indicated significant differences in all subscales of both models between clinical and non-clinical groups. Notably, the borderline personality disorder group showed elevated scores on specific STIPO-R subscales and all AMPD constructs except empathy. Neural network models achieved over 65% accuracy in predicting group membership, with AMPD slightly surpassing ORT (66%+ vs. 65%+). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated high sensitivity for both models, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.79 to 0.94. These findings underscore the significant utility of both AMPD and ORT for the assessment, early identification, and diagnosis of personality disorders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of personality assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"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/10.1080/00223891.2025.2545323\",\"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/10.1080/00223891.2025.2545323","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

虽然先前的研究已经探索了客体关系理论(ORT)和人格障碍替代模型(AMPD)之间的关系,但在不同临床人群和方法之间的全面比较仍然有限。本研究利用神经网络模型对639名参与者(229名非临床本科生,410名精神科住院患者)的AMPD和ORT在识别人格精神病理方面的预测准确性进行了研究。数据收集使用波斯语翻译的人格功能水平量表-自我报告(LPFS-SR), DSM-5人格量表(PID-5) (AMPD测量)和人格组织结构化访谈-修订版(STIPO-R) (ORT测量)。结果显示,两种模型在临床组和非临床组之间的所有亚量表均有显著差异。值得注意的是,边缘型人格障碍组在特定STIPO-R分量表和除共情外的所有AMPD构念上的得分都有所提高。神经网络模型预测群体成员的准确率超过65%,AMPD略高于ORT (66%+ vs. 65%+)。受试者工作特征(ROC)分析表明,两种模型都具有很高的灵敏度,曲线下面积(AUC)值在0.79至0.94之间。这些发现强调了AMPD和ORT在人格障碍的评估、早期识别和诊断方面的重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Neural Network Approach to Comparing AMPD and Object Relations Theory for Personality Disorder Assessment.

While prior research has explored the relationship between Object Relations Theory (ORT) and the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), comprehensive comparisons across diverse clinical populations and methodologies remain limited. This study investigated the predictive accuracy of AMPD and ORT in identifying personality psychopathology using neural network models within a mixed sample of 639 participants (229 non-clinical undergraduates, 410 psychiatric inpatients). Data were collected using Persian translations of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) (AMPD measures), and the Structured Interview of Personality Organization-Revised (STIPO-R) (ORT measure). Results indicated significant differences in all subscales of both models between clinical and non-clinical groups. Notably, the borderline personality disorder group showed elevated scores on specific STIPO-R subscales and all AMPD constructs except empathy. Neural network models achieved over 65% accuracy in predicting group membership, with AMPD slightly surpassing ORT (66%+ vs. 65%+). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated high sensitivity for both models, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.79 to 0.94. These findings underscore the significant utility of both AMPD and ORT for the assessment, early identification, and diagnosis of personality disorders.

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