人群和高危样本中人格障碍诊断替代模型的患病率、性别和年龄组比较以及LPFS-SR和PID-5的标准数据。

Personality disorders Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-06 DOI:10.1037/per0000632
Yann Le Corff, Mélanie Lapalme, Geneviève Rivard, Geneviève L'Ecuyer, Rosalie Morin, Karine Forget, Jean-Pierre Rolland
{"title":"人群和高危样本中人格障碍诊断替代模型的患病率、性别和年龄组比较以及LPFS-SR和PID-5的标准数据。","authors":"Yann Le Corff,&nbsp;Mélanie Lapalme,&nbsp;Geneviève Rivard,&nbsp;Geneviève L'Ecuyer,&nbsp;Rosalie Morin,&nbsp;Karine Forget,&nbsp;Jean-Pierre Rolland","doi":"10.1037/per0000632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD), introduced in Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), was proposed as a new operationalization of personality disorders (PDs) aiming to overcome the several limitations of the traditional symptom-based model (Waugh et al., 2017; Zimmerman et al., 2019). In the AMPD, PDs are defined by two-dimensional criteria (the level of personality functioning and maladaptive personality traits), but as a hybrid model, it also allows for categorical assessment of PDs (i.e., \"hybrid types\") to facilitate continuity with clinical practice. The present study aimed to provide normative data for two widely used instruments assessing Criterion A (Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report; Morey, 2017) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5; Krueger et al., 2012) in a large populational French-Canadian sample. Regarding the categorical assessment, Gamache et al. (2022) recently tested scoring approaches for extracting the PD hybrid types from dimensional measures of the AMPD. In the present study, these approaches were used to estimate prevalence rates for these PD hybrid types in two samples. In the populational sample, results showed that prevalence rates varied from 0.2% (antisocial PDs) to 3.0% (trait-specified PDs), with an overall prevalence of 5.9% to 6.1% for any PD hybrid type. Prevalence was higher in men than in women in the populational sample, but the contrary was observed in the at-risk sample. Prevalence was higher in younger adults than in middle-aged and older adults. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":" ","pages":"591-602"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence of the alternative model of personality disorders diagnoses in populational and at-risk samples, gender and age groups comparisons, and normative data for the LPFS-SR and PID-5.\",\"authors\":\"Yann Le Corff,&nbsp;Mélanie Lapalme,&nbsp;Geneviève Rivard,&nbsp;Geneviève L'Ecuyer,&nbsp;Rosalie Morin,&nbsp;Karine Forget,&nbsp;Jean-Pierre Rolland\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/per0000632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD), introduced in Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), was proposed as a new operationalization of personality disorders (PDs) aiming to overcome the several limitations of the traditional symptom-based model (Waugh et al., 2017; Zimmerman et al., 2019). In the AMPD, PDs are defined by two-dimensional criteria (the level of personality functioning and maladaptive personality traits), but as a hybrid model, it also allows for categorical assessment of PDs (i.e., \\\"hybrid types\\\") to facilitate continuity with clinical practice. The present study aimed to provide normative data for two widely used instruments assessing Criterion A (Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report; Morey, 2017) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5; Krueger et al., 2012) in a large populational French-Canadian sample. Regarding the categorical assessment, Gamache et al. (2022) recently tested scoring approaches for extracting the PD hybrid types from dimensional measures of the AMPD. In the present study, these approaches were used to estimate prevalence rates for these PD hybrid types in two samples. In the populational sample, results showed that prevalence rates varied from 0.2% (antisocial PDs) to 3.0% (trait-specified PDs), with an overall prevalence of 5.9% to 6.1% for any PD hybrid type. Prevalence was higher in men than in women in the populational sample, but the contrary was observed in the at-risk sample. Prevalence was higher in younger adults than in middle-aged and older adults. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"591-602\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000632\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》(DSM-5;美国精神病学协会,2013)第三节中引入的人格障碍替代模型(AMPD)被认为是人格障碍的一种新的操作化,旨在克服传统基于症状的模型的几个局限性(Waugh等人,2017;Zimmerman等人,2019)。在AMPD中,PD是由二维标准(人格功能水平和适应不良人格特征)定义的,但作为一个混合模型,它也允许对PD进行分类评估(即“混合类型”),以促进临床实践的连续性。本研究旨在为两种广泛使用的评估标准A(人格功能水平量表自我报告;Morey,2017)和B(DSM-5人格量表;Krueger等人,2012)的工具提供规范性数据。关于分类评估,Gamache等人(2022)最近测试了从AMPD的维度测量中提取PD混合类型的评分方法。在本研究中,这些方法用于估计两个样本中这些PD混合型的患病率。在人群样本中,结果显示,患病率从0.2%(反社会PD)到3.0%(特质特定PD)不等,任何PD混合型的总患病率为5.9%到6.1%。在人群样本中,男性的患病率高于女性,但在高危样本中观察到了相反的情况。年轻人的患病率高于中老年人。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prevalence of the alternative model of personality disorders diagnoses in populational and at-risk samples, gender and age groups comparisons, and normative data for the LPFS-SR and PID-5.

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD), introduced in Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), was proposed as a new operationalization of personality disorders (PDs) aiming to overcome the several limitations of the traditional symptom-based model (Waugh et al., 2017; Zimmerman et al., 2019). In the AMPD, PDs are defined by two-dimensional criteria (the level of personality functioning and maladaptive personality traits), but as a hybrid model, it also allows for categorical assessment of PDs (i.e., "hybrid types") to facilitate continuity with clinical practice. The present study aimed to provide normative data for two widely used instruments assessing Criterion A (Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report; Morey, 2017) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5; Krueger et al., 2012) in a large populational French-Canadian sample. Regarding the categorical assessment, Gamache et al. (2022) recently tested scoring approaches for extracting the PD hybrid types from dimensional measures of the AMPD. In the present study, these approaches were used to estimate prevalence rates for these PD hybrid types in two samples. In the populational sample, results showed that prevalence rates varied from 0.2% (antisocial PDs) to 3.0% (trait-specified PDs), with an overall prevalence of 5.9% to 6.1% for any PD hybrid type. Prevalence was higher in men than in women in the populational sample, but the contrary was observed in the at-risk sample. Prevalence was higher in younger adults than in middle-aged and older adults. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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