Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Concordance between personality disorder assessment methods

  • G. Nestadt (a1), C. Di (a2), J. F. Samuels (a1), Y.-J. Cheng (a3), O. J. Bienvenu (a1), I. M. Reti (a1), P. Costa (a4), W. W. Eaton (a5) and K. Bandeen-Roche (a6)...
Abstract
Background

Studies have criticized the low level of agreement between the various methods of personality disorder (PD) assessment. This is an important issue for research and clinical purposes.

Method

Seven hundred and forty-two participants in the Hopkins Epidemiology of Personality Disorders Study (HEPS) were assessed on two occasions using the Personality Disorder Schedule (PDS) and the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). The concordance between the two diagnostic methods for all DSM-IV PDs was assessed using standard methods and also two item response analytic approaches designed to take account of measurement error: a latent trait-based approach and a generalized estimating equations (GEE)-based approach, with post-hoc adjustment.

Results

Raw criteria counts, using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), κ and odds ratio (OR), showed poor concordance. The more refined statistical methods showed a moderate to moderately high level of concordance between the methods for most PDs studied. Overall, the PDS produced lower prevalences of traits but higher precision of measurement than the IPDE. Specific criteria within each PD showed varying endorsement thresholds and precision for ascertaining the disorder.

Conclusions

Concordance in the raw measurement of the individual PD criteria between the two clinical methods is lacking. However, based on two statistical methods that adjust for differential endorsement thresholds and measurement error in the assessments, we deduce that the PD constructs themselves can be measured with a moderate degree of confidence regardless of the clinical approach used. This may suggest that the individual criteria for each PD are, in and of themselves, less specific for diagnosis, but as a group the criteria for each PD usefully identify specific PD constructs.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Address for correspondence: Dr G. Nestadt, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Meyer 113, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. (Email: gnestadt@jhmi.edu)
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

SL Zeger , KY Liang (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 42, 121130.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Psychological Medicine
  • ISSN: 0033-2917
  • EISSN: 1469-8978
  • URL: /core/journals/psychological-medicine
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 13 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 143 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 29th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.