Cross-National Reliability Study of a Schedule for Assessing Personality Disorders

Tyrer, Peter; Dv, Cicchetti; Pr, Casey; Fitzpatrick, Katie L.; Oliver, R. A. C.; Balter, Alice-Simone; Giller, Earl L.; Harkness, Lynne

doi:10.1097/00005053-198412000-00004

Cited by 59 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found a total of 30 studies that included original informant and subject data on domains of personality pathology. Eight of these studies did not report selfinformant agreement and were therefore not included in this review (i.e., Bernstein, Cohen, Skodol, Bezirganian, & Brook, 1996;Brothwell, Casey, & Tyrer, 1992;Klein, Ouimette, Kelly, Ferro, & Riso, 1994;Pepper et al, 1995;Pfohl, Coryell, Zimmerman, & Stangl, 1986;Tyrer et al, 1984Tyrer et al, , 1990Zimmerman, Pfohl, Stangl, & Corenthal, 1986). Five additional studies were excluded for methodological issues (Allard & Grann, 2000;Dowson, 1992b;Molinari, Kunik, Mulsant, & Rifai, 1998;Steketee, 1990;Vine & Steingart, 1994).…”

Section: Studies Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informant-Reports of Personality Disorder: Relation to Self-Reports and Future Research Directions

Klonsky¹

2002

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

135

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most instruments that assess personality disorder rely principally on self-report. However, there are major limitations to using self-report for the diagnosis of personality pathology. First, the self provides only one opinion. Second, like everyone else, people with personality disorders are frequently unable to view themselves realistically and are unaware of the effect of their behavior on other people. Using informant data, therefore, may improve the reliability and validity of diagnostic assessment. A review of the literature reveals that agreement between informant-and self-reports of personality disorder is modest at best, even though informants tend to agree with each other. Self-informant concordance appears to be higher for older subjects and for Cluster B traits (excluding narcissism). Further research should focus on methods of resolving discrepancies between self-and informant-reports of personality disorder and determining when self or informant data are more valid.

show abstract

Section: Studies Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informant-Reports of Personality Disorder: Relation to Self-Reports and Future Research Directions

Klonsky¹

2002

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

135

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This, in turn, will lead to quantification of the burden imposed by personality disorders upon health-care systems and the possibility of aetiological investigations. Over the last 15 years, several standard instruments have been developed for assessment of personality disorders : International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE) (Loranger et al 1994) ; Personality Assessment Schedule (PAS) (Tyrer et al 1984) ; Standard Assessment of Personality (SAP) (Mann et al 1981) ; Structured Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders (SIDP-R) (Stangl et al 1985) ; Diagnostic In-terview for Personality Disorders (DIPD) (Zanarini et al 1987) ; Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID-III) (Spitzer et al 1990). In addition, there are at least four, relevant self-report questionnaires, for example : Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ) (Hyler et al 1989) ; Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ) (Cloniger, 1987) ; Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) (Millon, 1985) ; Screening Test for Co-morbid Personality Disorder (STCPD) (Dowson, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An assessment of the Standardized Assessment of Personality as a screening instrument for the International Personality Disorder Examination: a comparison of informant and patient assessment for personality disorder

Mann¹,

Raven

Pilgrim

et al. 1999

Psychol. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Personality (Clark 1990) Self-rated questionnaire Personality Assessment Inventory (Morey reliability (Tyrer 1984) and also validity when compared with other widely used instruments.…”

Section: ••mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of personality disorder

Banerjee¹,

Gibbon²,

Huband³

2009

Adv. psychiatr. treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIn 2003 the Department of Health, in conjunction with the National Institute for Mental Health in England, outlined the government's plan for the provision of mental health services for people with a diagnosis of personality disorder. This emphasised the need for practitioners to have skills in identifying, assessing and treating these disorders. It is important that personality disorders are properly assessed as they are common conditions that have a significant impact on an individual's functioning in all areas of life. Individuals with personality disorder are more vulnerable to other psychiatric disorders, and personality disorders can complicate recovery from severe mental illness. This article reviews the classification of personality disorder and some common assessment instruments. It also offers a structure for the assessment of personality disorder.

show abstract

Cross-National Reliability Study of a Schedule for Assessing Personality Disorders

Cited by 59 publications

References 0 publications

Informant-Reports of Personality Disorder: Relation to Self-Reports and Future Research Directions

Informant-Reports of Personality Disorder: Relation to Self-Reports and Future Research Directions

An assessment of the Standardized Assessment of Personality as a screening instrument for the International Personality Disorder Examination: a comparison of informant and patient assessment for personality disorder

Assessment of personality disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About