ABSTRACT
Personality disorder (PD) is increasingly categorized according to its severity, but there is no simple way to screen for severity according to ICD-11 criteria. We set out to develop the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD). A total of 110 patients completed the SASPD together with a clinical assessment of the severity of personality disorder. We examined the predictive ability of the SASPD using the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Two to four weeks later, 43 patients repeated the SASPD to examine reliability. The SASPD had good predictive ability for determining mild (AUC = 0.86) and moderate (AUC = 0.84) PD at cut points of 8 and 10, respectively. Test-retest reliability of the SASPD was high (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93, 95% CI [0.88, 0.96]). The SASPD thus provides a simple, brief, and reliable indicator of the presence of mild or moderate PD according to ICD-11 criteria.
Subject(s)
Interview, Psychological/methods , Personality Disorders/diagnosis , Psychometrics/statistics & numerical data , Severity of Illness Index , Surveys and Questionnaires/standards , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Personality Assessment , Personality Disorders/psychology , Predictive Value of Tests , ROC Curve , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The underlying core of personality is insufficiently assessed by any single instrument. This has led to the development of instruments adapted for written records in the assessment of personality disorder. AIMS: To test the construct validity and inter-rater reliability of a new personality assessment method. METHOD: This study (four parts) assessed the construct validity of the Schedule for Personality Assessment from Notes and Documents (SPAN-DOC), a dimensional assessment from clinical records. We examined inter-rater reliability using case vignettes (Part 1) and convergent validity in three ways: by comparison with NEO Five-Factor Inventory in 130 Korean patients (Part 2), with agreed ICD-11 personality severity levels in two populations (Part 3) and determining its use in assessing the personality status in 90 British patients with eating disorders (Part 4). RESULTS: Internal consistency (alpha = .90) and inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ .88) were satisfactory. Each factor in the five-factor model of personality was correlated with conceptually valid SPAN-DOC variables. The SPAN-DOC domain traits in those with eating disorders were categorized into 3 clusters: self-aggrandisement, emotionally unstable, and anxious/dependent. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary support for the usefulness of SPAN-DOC in the assessment of personality disorder. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Subject(s)
Feeding and Eating Disorders/diagnosis , Feeding and Eating Disorders/psychology , International Classification of Diseases , Mental Status Schedule , Personality Assessment , Personality Disorders/diagnosis , Personality Disorders/psychology , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Observer Variation , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The UK guidelines on the treatment of personality disorder recommend avoiding compulsory treatment except in extreme situations. Little is known about how often patients with personality disorder are detained or how this compares with the treatment of other mental disorders. OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to test the hypothesis that people with personality disorder are infrequently detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and that risk factors associated with detention are the same as those for people with other mental disorders. METHOD: We used a retrospective, quantitative study of MHA assessments. RESULTS: Of the 2 087 assessments undertaken, 204 (9.8%) patients had a diagnosis of personality disorder; 40.7% of assessments in the personality disorder group resulted in detention, as did 69.7% of patients with other mental disorders. A higher proportion of people with personality disorder received no intervention following assessment compared with those with other mental disorders (20.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). Study centre and a history of admission were risk factors for detention in both groups. Risk was a predictor of detention in those with other mental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Detention rates in patients with personality disorder are lower than those for other disorders but are still substantial. Risk factors for detention in patients with personality disorder differ from those with other mental disorders. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
