2000
DOI: 10.1053/comp.2000.0410295
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ with Longitudinal, Expert, All Data (LEAD) standard diagnoses in a sample with a high prevalence of axis I and axis II disorders

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
36
0
4

Year Published

2005
2005
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
4
36
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Including clinician-rated psychopathy measures would allow comparison of these factors of psychopathy to those in the PCL:SV (for nonincarcerated samples) or PCL-R (for incarcerated samples) and would also permit an examination of whether self-reports and clinician ratings of psychopathy factors would share enough variance to segregate into conceptual factors within the nomological network of psychopathy or whether they would instead separate into methodological factors. Furthermore, the construct validity of these selfreport psychopathy factors should be examined with interview-based diagnostic symptoms of personality disorders, because there are indications in the literature that the PDQ-4+ may not be a suitable replacement for a structured clinical interview (Fossati et al, 1998, Wilberg, Dammen, & Friis, 2000; but see Davison, Leese, & Taylor, 2001). …”
Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Including clinician-rated psychopathy measures would allow comparison of these factors of psychopathy to those in the PCL:SV (for nonincarcerated samples) or PCL-R (for incarcerated samples) and would also permit an examination of whether self-reports and clinician ratings of psychopathy factors would share enough variance to segregate into conceptual factors within the nomological network of psychopathy or whether they would instead separate into methodological factors. Furthermore, the construct validity of these selfreport psychopathy factors should be examined with interview-based diagnostic symptoms of personality disorders, because there are indications in the literature that the PDQ-4+ may not be a suitable replacement for a structured clinical interview (Fossati et al, 1998, Wilberg, Dammen, & Friis, 2000; but see Davison, Leese, & Taylor, 2001). …”
Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the presence of depression, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI: Beck et al, 1961), which consist in a 21-item relative to depression (α=0.91). The Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4th Edition (PDQ-4) was administered for detection of personality disorders (α=0.50 -0.71), consistent with the DSM-IV (Hyler, 1994;Rodgers et al, 2004;Wilberg et al, 2000). Finally, the Anxiety Disorders structured Interview Schedule for DSM-IV (ADIS-IV: Brown et al, 1994) was administered by a psychologist to assess comorbid anxiety disorders.…”
Section: Clinical Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Firstly, the PDQ4+, widely used for the screening of Personality Disorders, cannot be considered the standard in the diagnosis of Personality Disorders because it is a self-report measure and it has shown to generate a high percentage of false positives [35] [53]. It is possible that the presence of cluster B PDs among participants was overestimated, and further studies should administered other measurement instruments as the SCID-II to evaluate the prevalence rates of cluster B PDs among Italian patients who undergo aesthetic plastic surgery.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%