Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The CDA-BPD: retrofitting a traditional borderline personality questionnaire under the cognitive diagnosis model framework

  • Siwei Peng (a1), Daxun Wang (a1), Xuliang Gao (a1), Yan Cai (a1) and Dongbo Tu (a1)...

Abstract

To obtain rich information about the cognitive diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD), this study attempted to retrofit a traditional borderline personality questionnaire so that the improved assessment (called CDA-BPD) could provide more diagnostic information. The retrofitting processes included the following steps: (1) applied an cognitive diagnosis model to analyze the psychometric characteristics of the traditional questionnaire; (2) under the guidance of cognitive diagnosis assessment (CDA), high-quality items were chosen to develop the CDA-BPD and tested on 1,097 subjects; (3) the quality of the CDA-BPD was evaluated; (4) the structure of the CDA-BPD was analyzed. Results indicated that: (1) the CDA-BPD had acceptable reliability and validity; (2) the CDA-BPD had sensitivity of 0.985 and specificity of 0.853 with area under curve (AUC) = 0.956; (3) the two structural factors of the traditional questionnaire were confirmed in the CDA-BPD; χ2 was 83.01 with df = 26, p < .0001, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.045. It was concluded that the practice of retrofitting a traditional borderline personality assessment for cognitive diagnostic purpose was feasible. Most importantly, under the cognitive diagnosis model framework, CDA-BPD could simultaneously provide general-level information and the detailed symptom criteria-level information about the posterior probability of satisfying each symptom criterion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th edition; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) for each individual, which gave further insight into tailoring individual-specific treatments for borderline personality disorder.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The CDA-BPD: retrofitting a traditional borderline personality questionnaire under the cognitive diagnosis model framework
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The CDA-BPD: retrofitting a traditional borderline personality questionnaire under the cognitive diagnosis model framework
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The CDA-BPD: retrofitting a traditional borderline personality questionnaire under the cognitive diagnosis model framework
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: Dongbo Tu, Email: tudongbo@aliyun.com

References

Hide All
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Aggen, S.H., Neale, M.C., Røysamb, E., Reichborn-Kjennerud, T. and Kendler, K.S. (2009). A psychometric evaluation of the DSM-IV borderline personality disorder criteria: Age and sex moderation of criterion functioning. Psychological Medicine, 39, 19671978.
Bach, B., Sellbom, M., Bo, S. and Simonsen, E. (2016). Utility of DSM-5 section III personality traits in differentiating borderline personality disorder from comparison groups. European Psychiatry, 37, 2227.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136136.
Byrne, B.M. (2012). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer Verlag.
Chen, H. and Chen, J. (2016). Retrofitting non-cognitive-diagnostic reading assessment under the generalized DINA model framework. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13, 218230.
Chen, H., Zhong, J. and Liu, Y.X. (2011). Application of Mclean screening instrument for borderline personality disorder in Chinese psychiatric samples. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19, 594595.
Chen, J. and de la Torre, J. (2013). A general cognitive diagnosis model for expert-defined polytomous attributes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 419437.
Conway, C., Hammen, C. and Brennan, P. (2012). A comparison of latent class, latent trait, and factor mixture models of DSM-IV borderline personality disorder criteria in a community setting: Implications for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 793803.
Cui, Y., Gierl, M.J. and Chang, H.H. (2012). Estimating classification consistency and accuracy for cognitive diagnostic assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 49, 1938.
de la Torre, J. (2008). An empirically based method of Q-matrix validation for the DINA model: Development and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 45, 343362.
de la Torre, J. (2009). A cognitive diagnosis model for cognitively based multiple-choice options. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33, 163183.
de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76, 179199.
de la Torre, J. and Chen, J. (2011, April). Estimating different reduced cognitive diagnosis models using a general framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
de la Torre, J. and Chiu, C.Y. (2016). General method of empirical Q-matrix validation. Psychometrika, 81, 253273.
de la Torre, J. and Minchen, N. (2014). Cognitively diagnostic assessments and the cognitive diagnosis model framework. Psicología Educativa, 20, 8997.
de la Torre, J., van der Ark, L.A. and Rossi, G. (2018). Analysis of clinical data from a cognitive diagnosis modeling framework. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 51, 281296.
Ferrer, M., Andión, Ó., Calvo, N., Hörz, S., Fischer-Kern, M. and Kapusta, N.D. (2018). Clinical components of borderline personality disorder and personality functioning. Psychopathology, 51, 3546.
Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Paino, M., Lemos-Giráldez, S., Sierra-Baigrie, S. and Muñiz, J. (2011). Measurement invariance of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief across gender and age. Psychiatry Research, 190, 309315.
Hartz, S.M. (2002). A Bayesian framework for the unified model for assessing cognitive abilities: Blending theory with practicality. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 95, 906909.
Hou, L., de la Torre, J. and Nandakumar, R. (2014). Differential item functioning assessment in cognitive diagnostic modeling: Application of the Wald test to investigate DIF in the DINA model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51, 98125.
Huang, J., Napolitano Li, A., Wu, J., Yang, Y., Xi, Y., Li, Y. and Li, K. (2014). Childhood experiences of parental rearing patterns reported by Chinese patients with borderline personality disorder. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 3845.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 155.
Hyler, S.E. (1994). PDQ-4 and PDQ-4+ instructions for use. New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Iacono, W.G. (2013). Looking forward to the new personality disorder classification for DSM-5. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 284285.
Jaeger, J., Tatsuoka, C., Berns, S.M. and Varadi, F. (2006). Distinguishing neurocognitive functions in schizophrenia using partially ordered classification models. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32, 679691.
Jang, E.E. (2009). Cognitive diagnostic assessment of L2 reading comprehension ability: Validity arguments for fusion model application to LanguEdge assessment. Language Testing, 26, 3173.
Junker, B.W. and Sijtsma, K. (2001). Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25, 258272.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kröger, C., Huget, F. and Röpke, S. (2011). Diagnostic accuracy of the McLean Screening Instrument for borderline personality disorder in an inpatient sample who seek a disorder-specific treatment. PPmP-Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie, 61, 481.
Lee, Y.S., Park, Y.S. and Taylan, D. (2011). A cognitive diagnostic modeling of attribute mastery in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and the US national sample using the TIMSS 2007. International Journal of Testing, 11, 144177.
Lee, Y.W. and Sawaki, Y. (2009). Application of three cognitive diagnosis models to ESL reading and listening assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 239263.
Liu, R., Huggins-Manley, A.C. and Bulut, O. (2018). Retrofitting diagnostic classification models to responses from IRT-based assessment forms. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78, 357383.
Ma, W. and de la Torre, J. (2016). GDINA: The Generalized DINA Model Framework. R package version 0.13.0. Retrieved from http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=GDINA
Ma, W., Iaconangelo, C. and de la Torre, J. (2016). Model similarity, model selection, and attribute classification. Applied Psychological Measurement, 40, 200217.
Miller, J.D., Morse, J.Q., Nolf, K., Stepp, S.D. and Pilkonis, P.A. (2012). Can DSM-IV borderline personality disorder be diagnosed via dimensional personality traits? Implications for the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 944950.
Mullins-Sweatt, S.N., Edmundson, M., Sauer-Zavala, S., Lynam, D.R., Miller, J.D. and Widiger, T.A. (2012). Five-factor measure of borderline personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 475487.
Orlando, M. and Thissen, D. (2003). Further investigation of the performance of S-X2: An item fit index for use with dichotomous item response theory models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 289298.
Poreh, A.M., Rawlings, D., Claridge, G., Freeman, J.L., Faulkner, C. and Shelton, C. (2006). The BPQ: A scale for the assessment of borderline personality based on DSM-IV criteria. Journal of Personality Disorders, 20, 247260.
Roberts, M.R. and Gierl, M.J. (2010). Developing score reports for cognitive diagnostic assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29, 2538.
Sorrel, M.A., Abad, F.J., Olea, J., de la Torre, J. and Barrada, J.R. (2017). Inferential item-fit evaluation in cognitive diagnosis modeling. Applied psychological measurement, 41, 614631.
Swets, J.A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 12851293.
Tatsuoka, K.K. (1990). Toward an integration of item-response theory and cognitive error diagnosis. In Frederiksen, N., Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., and Shafto, M.G. (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 453488). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Templin, J. and Henson, R.A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11, 287305.
Templin, J. and Henson, R.A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Templin, J. and Bradshaw, L. (2013). Measuring the reliability of diagnostic classification model examinee estimates. Journal of Classification, 30, 251275.
Tu, D., Gao, X., Wang, D. and Cai, Y. (2017). A new measurement of internet addiction using diagnostic classification models. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 17681776.
Wang, Y.Y., Liang, Y.J. and Zhong, J. (2008). The adaptation of McLean screening instrument of for borderline personality disorder among Chinese college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16, 258260.
Yang, J., McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., Yao, S., Dai, X., Cai, T. and Gao, B. (2000). The cross-cultural generalizability of Axis-II constructs: An evaluation of two personality disorder assessment instruments in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14, 249263.
Yi, Y.S. (2017). In search of optimal cognitive diagnostic model(s) for ESL Grammar test data. Applied Measurement in Education, 30, 123144.
Zanarini, M.C., Vujanovic, A.A., Parachini, E.A., Boulanger, J.L., Frankenburg, F.R. and Hennen, J. (2003). A screening measure for BPD: The McLean screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (MSI-BPD). Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 568573.
Zanarini, M.C. (2003). Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD): A continuous measure of DSM-IV borderline psychopathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 233242.

Keywords

The CDA-BPD: retrofitting a traditional borderline personality questionnaire under the cognitive diagnosis model framework

  • Siwei Peng (a1), Daxun Wang (a1), Xuliang Gao (a1), Yan Cai (a1) and Dongbo Tu (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed