1993
DOI: 10.1002/1098-108x(199312)14:4<403::aid-eat2260140403>3.0.co;2-x
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts

Comorbidity of DSM-III-R eating disorders and personality disorders

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship of eating disorders to personality disorders. Two hundred subjects were independently administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐III‐R (SCID) and the Personality Disorder Examination (PDE) face‐to‐face by two experienced clinicians. One hundred forty‐six also completed the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire‐Revised (PDQ‐R). Rates of personality disorder among patients with and without eating disorders were determined by each of the three in… Show more

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
114
11
9
0

Citation Types

4
58
3
12

Year Published

Range
1994
1994
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
102
17
9

Relationship

2
126

Authors

Journals

citations

Cited by 128 publications

(77 citation statements)
references

References 23 publications

4
58
3
12
Order By: Relevance
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Overall, analyses indicated that these variables showed the expected linear relationship to eating disorder continuum placement, thereby supporting the construct validity of the eating disorder continuum hypothesis for women. These results also extend prior work that showed a variety of psychological, behavioral, and cognitive characteristics related to clinical eating disorders (Brookings & Wilson, 1994;Fairburn, 1995;Garner, 1991;Skodol et al, 1993;Stotland & Zuroff, 1990) to be related as expected to women's continuum placement. Moreover, consistent with the limited empirical research that does not show a clear relationship between eating disturbances and certain psychological and behavioral characteristics (Brookings & Wilson, 1994), eating disorder continuum placement was not differentiated by Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 85%