Interrater Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module I: Level of Personality Functioning ScaleBuer Christensen, T., Paap, M. C. S., Arnesen, M., Koritzinsky, K., Nysaeter, T-E., Eikenaes, I., Germans Selvik, S., Walther, K., Torgersen, S., Bender, D. S., Skodol, A. E., Kvarstein, E., Pedersen, G. & Hummelen, B., 2-Nov-2018, In : Journal of Personality Assessment. 100, 6, p. 630-641 12 p.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) presents an alternative model for personality disorders in which severity of personality pathology is evaluated by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The Structured Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, Module I (SCID-5-AMPD I) is a new tool for LPFS assessment, but its interrater reliability (IRR) has not yet been tested. Here we examined the reliability of the Norwegian translation of the SCID-5-AMPD I, applying two different designs: IRR assessment based on ratings of 17 video-recorded SCID-5-AMPD I interviews by five raters; and test-retest IRR based on interviews of 33 patients administered by two different raters within a short interval. For the video-based investigation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged from .77 to .94 for subdomains, .89 to .95 for domains, and .96 for total LPFS. For the test-retest investigation, ICC ranged from .24 to .72 for subdomains, .59 to .90 for domains, and .75 for total LPFS. The test-retest study revealed questionable reliability estimates for some subdomains. However, overall the level of personality functioning was measured with a sufficient degree of IRR when assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD I.
|Number of pages||12|
|Journal||Journal of Personality Assessment|
|Early online date||7-Aug-2018|
|Publication status||Published - 2-Nov-2018|
- personality disorder, UNITED-STATES, SELF-REPORT, PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION, EMPIRICAL SUPPORT, FIELD TRIALS, IRONIC FATE, PART I, PREVALENCE, CLASSIFICATION, SEVERITY
No data available