A short screening tool for borderline personality disorder (Short-Bord): Validated by Rasch analysis

Wongpakaran, Nahathai; Kuntawong, Pimolpun

doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2019.08.004

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike MSI or IPDE, the SI-Bord uses only the most important diagnostic criteria of BPD instead of using all 9 DSM criteria. As a screening tool, only those items that correlate strongly with the reference diagnosis were counted [28,41]. It is easier to form a unidimensional scale with only a few items, making it logical to use both the total score and cut-off score.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SI-Bord was modified from the Short-Bord [28], consisting of 5 questions representing the DSM-5 criteria of BPD for 1) abandonment avoidance, 2) interpersonal relationships instability, 3) identity disturbance, 4) suicidal and self-harm behaviors and 5) affective instability. SI-Bord has 4-point Likert scales, ranging from never (0) to very often (3), while the original version of the Short-Bord uses a true-false response.…”

Section: ) Screening Instrument For Borderline Personality Disorder mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, the authors (NW, TW, and PK) developed a short screening tool for borderline personality disorder, comparable to the BPD subscale in SCID-II (Short-Bord) that uses a true-false questionnaire with five items based on DSM-5 criteria. Short-Bord was tested in psychiatric patients who came for psychotherapy and showed an AUC of 0.95, a sensitivity of 91.2% and a specificity of 85.4%, determined by a cut-off of ≥2, and a Cronbach's alpha of 0.80 [28]. Although the scale is brief, it performs well and has promise as a diagnostic tool.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development and validation of a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university students

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) consists of a 5-item self-reported questionnaire on the key features of BPD from the DSM-5 using a 5-point Likert scale. This study investigated its validity and reliability in screening for BPD in university students. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of university students in Thailand between November and December 2019. An online assessment gathered demographic data and results from the SI-Bord, the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Participants whose SI-Bord scores were ≥ 1 were randomly selected to be interviewed and assessed for a BPD diagnosis by four psychiatrists using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) as a reference point. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.925 (95% CI, 0.805–0.979) ensured inter-rater reliability between the four psychiatrists. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the SI-Bord, as compared to that of the SCID-II, were determined to indicate the cut-off score. The Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was analyzed to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy. Results The study included 342 students aged 18–25 years (the mean age was 20.25 ± 1.4 years), 80.4% of whom were female. Among the 68 participants selected for an online interview, 16 were diagnosed with BPD. The cut-off score of the SI-Bord was > 9, as suggested by the Youden index, yielding a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 92.3%. It had a positive predictive value of 69.2% and negative predictive value of 87.3%. The SI-Bord had adequate discriminative power between cases and non-cases of BPD, with the area under the ROC curve being 0.83. Cronbach’s alpha for the SI-Bord was 0.76, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The SI-Bord score was positively correlated to PHQ-9 and PSS-10 scores (r = 0.67 and r = 0.69, p < 0.001, respectively) and negatively correlated to MSPSS (r = − 0.50, p < 0.001). The prevalence of BPD in the sample was 6.4%, according to the cut-off score > 9. Conclusion The SI-Bord demonstrated good reliability and validity for screening BPD in university students. However, a study in non-Thai and other population groups should be warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ) Screening Instrument For Borderline Personality Disorder mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development and validation of a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university students

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, van Alebeek and colleagues [23] compared three scales (MSI (10 items), PDQ (10-items), and SCID-II-PQ BPD (15 items)) in adolescents and young adults and found that all instruments predicted a BPD diagnosis equally well, despite the fact that PDQ's internal consistency was quite poor. In addition, studies have shown that borderline personality feature especially emotion dysregulation, the most sensitive and speci c manifestation for BPD diag nosis [24], are in uenced and can be shaped by culture [25][26][27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Validation of a Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (SI-Bord) for Use among University Students

Lohanan

Leesawat

Wongpakaran

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) consists of a 5-item self-reported questionnaire on the key features of BPD from the DSM-5 using a 5-point Likert scale. This study investigated its validity and reliability in screening for BPD in university students. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of university students in Thailand between November and December 2019. An online assessment gathered demographic data and results from the SI-Bord, the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Participants whose SI-Bord scores were ≥ 1 were randomly selected to be interviewed and assessed for a BPD diagnosis by four psychiatrists using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) as a reference point. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.925 (95% CI, 0.805–0.979) ensured inter-rater reliability between the four psychiatrists. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the SI-Bord, as compared to that of the SCID-II, were determined to indicate the cut-off score. The Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was analyzed to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy.Results: The study included 342 students aged 18–25 years (the mean age was 20.25 ± 1.4 years), 80.4% of whom were female. Among the 68 participants selected for an online interview, 16 were diagnosed with BPD. The cut-off score of the SI-Bord was > 9, as suggested by the Youden index, yielding a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 92.3%. It had a positive predictive value of 69.2% and negative predictive value of 87.3%. The SI-Bord had adequate discriminative power between cases and non-cases of BPD, with the area under the ROC curve being 0.83. Cronbach’s alpha for the SI-Bord was 0.76, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The SI-Bord score was positively correlated to PHQ-9 and PSS-10 scores (r = 0.67 and r = 0.69, p < 0.001, respectively) and negatively correlated to MSPSS (r = - 0.50, p < 0.001). The prevalence of BPD in the sample was 6.4%, according to the cut-off score > 9. Conclusion: The SI-Bord demonstrated good reliability and validity for screening BPD in university students. However, a study in non-Thai and other population groups should be warranted.

show abstract

“…Recently, the authors (NW, TW, and PK) developed a short screening tool for borderline personality disorder, comparable to the BPD subscale in SCID-II (Short-Bord) that uses a true-false questionnaire with ve items based on DSM-5 criteria. Short-Bord was tested in psychiatric patients who came for psychotherapy and showed an AUC of 0.95, a sensitivity of 91.2% and a speci city of 85.4%, determined by a cut-off of ≥ 2, and a Cronbach's alpha of 0.80 [24]. Although the scale is brief, it performs well and has promise as a diagnostic tool.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Validation of a Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (SI-Bord) for Use Among University Students

Lohanan

Leesawat

Wongpakaran

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) consists of a 5-item self-reported questionnaire on the key features of BPD from the DSM-5 using a 5-point Likert scale. This study investigated its validity and reliability in screening for BPD in university students.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of university students in Thailand between November and December 2019. An online assessment gathered demographic data and results from the SI-Bord, the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Participants whose SI-Bord scores were ≥ 1 were randomly selected to be interviewed and assessed for a BPD diagnosis by four psychiatrists using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) as a reference point. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.925 (95% CI, 0.805–0.979) ensured inter-rater reliability between the four psychiatrists. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the SI-Bord, as compared to that of the SCID-II, were determined to indicate the cut-off score. The Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was analyzed to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy.Results: The study included 342 students aged 18–25 years (the mean age was 20.25 ± 1.4 years), 80.4% of whom were female. Among the 68 participants selected for an online interview, 16 were diagnosed with BPD. The cut-off score of the SI-Bord was > 9, as suggested by the Youden index, yielding a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 92.3%. It had a positive predictive value of 69.2% and negative predictive value of 87.3%. The SI-Bord had adequate discriminative power between cases and non-cases of BPD, with the area under the ROC curve being 0.83. Cronbach’s alpha for the SI-Bord was 0.76, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The SI-Bord score was positively correlated to PHQ-9 and PSS-10 scores (r = 0.67 and r = 0.69, p < 0.001, respectively) and negatively correlated to MSPSS (r = − 0.50, p < 0.001). The prevalence of BPD in the sample was 6.4%, according to the cut-off score > 9.Conclusion: The SI-Bord demonstrated good reliability and validity for screening BPD in university students.

show abstract

A short screening tool for borderline personality disorder (Short-Bord): Validated by Rasch analysis

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

Development and validation of a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university students

Development and validation of a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university students

Development and Validation of a Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (SI-Bord) for Use among University Students

Development and Validation of a Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (SI-Bord) for Use Among University Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About