Literature DB >> 22401476

Results of the search for personality disorder screening tools: clinical implications.

Sara Germans1, Guus L Van Heck, Paul P G Hodiamont.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics, validity, posttest probabilities, and screening capabilities of 8 different instruments used to predict personality disorders.
METHOD: Screening instruments were examined in 3 prospective, observational, test-development studies in 3 random samples of Dutch psychiatric outpatients, using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (SCID-II) as the "gold standard." The studies were performed from March 2004 to March 2005 (study 1: N = 195, mean age = 32.7 years), October 2006 to January 2007 (study 2: N = 79, mean age = 34.3 years), and January 2008 to October 2009 (study 3: N = 102, mean age = 33.7 years). The following 8 assessment instruments were examined: 3 short questionnaires (a self-report form of the Standardized Assessment of Personality-Abbreviated Scale [SAPAS-SR], the self-report Iowa Personality Disorder Screen [IPDS], and a short self-report version of the SCID-II [S-SCID-II]); 2 longer questionnaires (the self-report SCID-II Personality Questionnaire [SCID-II-PQ] and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory [NEO-FFI]); 1 short semistructured interview (the Quick Personality Assessment Schedule [PAS-Q]); and 2 informant-based interviews (the Standardized Assessment of Personality [SAP] and the Standardized Assessment of Personality-Abbreviated Scale for Informants [SAPAS-INF]).
RESULTS: The SCID-II rate of identification of personality disorders in the 3 studies was between 48.1% and 64.1%. The SAPAS-SR, the IPDS, and the PAS-Q had the best sensitivity (83%, 77%, and 80%, respectively) and specificity (80%, 85%, and 82%, respectively). Moreover, these 3 instruments correctly classified the largest number of patients. Using the SAPAS-SR, the IPDS, or the PAS-Q raises the odds from 50% to between 80% and 84% that a patient in a psychiatric outpatient population will receive a personality disorder diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence for the usefulness of the SAPAS-SR, IPDS, and PAS-Q instruments for personality disorder screening. Because the PAS-Q takes a longer time and requires qualified personnel to administer it, we recommend use of the SAPAS-SR or the self-report version of the IPDS. © Copyright 2012 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22401476     DOI: 10.4088/JCP.11m07067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry        ISSN: 0160-6689            Impact factor:   4.384


  7 in total

1.  An Empirical Study of Personality Disorders Among Treatment-Seeking Problem Gamblers.

Authors:  M Brown; E Oldenhof; J S Allen; N A Dowling
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2016-12

2.  The MATCH cohort study in the Netherlands: rationale, objectives, methods and baseline characteristics of patients with (long-term) common mental disorders.

Authors:  Bauke Koekkoek; Willeke Manders; Indira Tendolkar; Giel Hutschemaekers; Bea Tiemens
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 4.035

3.  Cost effectiveness of interpersonal community psychiatric treatment for people with long-term severe non-psychotic mental disorders: protocol of a multi-centre randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mark van Veen; Bauke Koekkoek; Niels Mulder; Debby Postulart; Eddy Adang; Steven Teerenstra; Lisette Schoonhoven; Theo van Achterberg
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2015-05-02       Impact factor: 3.630

4.  COgnitive behavioural therapy vs standardised medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES): a multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol.

Authors:  Laura H Goldstein; John D C Mellers; Sabine Landau; Jon Stone; Alan Carson; Nick Medford; Markus Reuber; Mark Richardson; Paul McCrone; Joanna Murray; Trudie Chalder
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2015-06-27       Impact factor: 2.474

5.  Childhood trauma and negative memory bias as shared risk factors for psychopathology and comorbidity in a naturalistic psychiatric patient sample.

Authors:  Janna N Vrijsen; Camiel T van Amen; Bauke Koekkoek; Iris van Oostrom; Aart H Schene; Indira Tendolkar
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 2.708

6.  Metacognitive therapy and work-focused interventions for patients on sick leave due to anxiety and depression: study protocol for a randomised controlled wait-list trial.

Authors:  Kenneth Sandin; Ragne G H Gjengedal; Kåre Osnes; Marit Hannisdal; Torkil Berge; Jonas S R Leversen; Lars G Røv; Silje Endresen Reme; Suzanne Lagerveld; Roland Blonk; Hans M Nordahl; Gemma Shields; Adrian Wells; Odin Hjemdal
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-11-27       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Psychotic experiences, psychiatric comorbidity and mental health need in the general population: a cross-sectional and cohort study in Southeast London.

Authors:  Vishal Bhavsar; Sarah Dorrington; Craig Morgan; Stephani L Hatch; Philip McGuire; Paolo Fusar-Poli; John Mills; James H MacCabe; Matthew Hotopf
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 7.723

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.