Die DPG-Praxis-Studie

Benecke, Cord; Tschiesner, Reinhard; Boothe, Brigitte; Frommer, Jörg; Huber, Dorothea; Krause, Rainer; Schmitz, Hermann

doi:10.1007/s00451-011-0072-x

Cited by 19 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sample 1. Data from 5,400 treatment-seeking participants (66% women; mean age of 37.40, SD ϭ 11.80) were collected at 12 psychoanalytic training institutions belonging to the German Psychoanalytic Society (Benecke et al, 2011;Henkel et al, 2019). Included were participants who underwent assessment and passed entry diagnostics for an outpatient psychotherapy, irrespective of a subsequent beginning of therapy.…”

Section: Methods Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The latent structure of interpersonal problems: Validity of dimensional, categorical, and hybrid models.

Wendt

Wright

Pilkonis

et al. 2019

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpersonal problems are key transdiagnostic constructs in psychopathology. In the past, investigators have neglected the importance of operationalizing interpersonal problems according to their latent structure by using divergent representations of the construct: (a) computing scores for severity, agency, and communion (“dimensional approach”), (b) classifying persons into subgroups with respect to their interpersonal profile (“categorical approach”). This hinders cumulative research on interpersonal problems, because findings cannot be integrated both from a conceptual and a statistical point of view. We provide a comprehensive evaluation of interpersonal problems by enlisting several large samples (Ns = 5,400, 491, 656, and 712) to estimate a set of latent variable candidate models, covering the spectrum of purely dimensional (i.e., confirmatory factor analysis using Gaussian and nonnormal latent t-distributions), hybrid (i.e., semiparametric factor analysis), and purely categorical approaches (latent class analysis). Statistical models were compared with regard to their structural validity, as evaluated by model fit (corrected Akaike’s information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion), and their concurrent validity, as defined by the models’ ability to predict relevant external variables. Across samples, the fully dimensional model performed best in terms of model fit, prediction, robustness, and parsimony. We found scant evidence that categorical and hybrid models provide incremental value for understanding interpersonal problems. Our results indicate that the latent structure of interpersonal problems is best represented by continuous dimensions, especially when one allows for nonnormal latent distributions.

show abstract

Section: Methods Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The latent structure of interpersonal problems: Validity of dimensional, categorical, and hybrid models.

Wendt

Wright

Pilkonis

et al. 2019

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We reanalyzed data on PD symptoms and outcomes from three different clinical studies: The DPG practice study (DPG study; Benecke et al, 2011), the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorder Study (CLPS study; Gunderson et al, 2000) and the St. Louis Personality and Aging Network Study (SPAN study; Oltmanns et al, 2014). A summary of the samples is shown in Table 1.…”

Section: Methods Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The DPG Practice study is a naturalistic longitudinal study which aims to investigate the effectiveness, sustainability, and economic aspects of psychodynamic and analytic psychotherapy (Benecke et al, 2011). Across 11 different outpatient clinics located across Germany, 5,400 treatment-seeking participants were initially assessed at baseline.…”

Section: Dpg Practice Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the predictive validity of personality disorder criteria.

Müller¹,

Hopwood²,

Skodol³

et al. 2023

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested the predictive validity of personality disorder (PD) indicators at different levels of aggregation, ranging from general PD severity to PD syndrome scales to individual PD criteria. We compared the predictive validity of models on these levels based on interview data on all 78 DSM-IV PD criteria, by using 19 outcome scales in three different samples (N = 651, N = 552, and N = 1,277). We hypothesized that criteria of personality pathology yield a significant increase in predictive validity compared with scales that are aggregated at the syndrome- or general severity-level. We assessed out of sample performance of predictive models in a repeated cross-validation design using regularized linear regression and regression forest algorithms. We observed no significant difference in predictive performance between models trained at the item-level and models trained on scale-level data. We further tested the predictive performance of the trained linear models across samples on outcome measures shared between samples and inspected models for criteria-level information they relied on to make predictions. Our results suggest that little predictive variance is lost when interview items assessing DSM-IV PD criteria are aggregated to dimensional PD scales.

show abstract

“…The DPG Practice study is a naturalistic longitudinal study which aims to investigate effectiveness, sustainability and economic aspects of psychodynamic and analytic psychotherapy (Benecke et al, 2011). Across eleven different outpatient clinics located across Germany, 5400 treatment-seeking patients were initially assessed at baseline.…”

Section: Benecke Et Al 2011mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the Structure of DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorder Criteria Using Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

Müller,

Schroeders,

Bachrach

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The factor structure of Personality Disorder (PD) criteria has long been debated, but due to previous heterogenous findings, a common structure to represent covariation among DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II PD criteria remains an open question. This study integrated a total of N = 30,545 PD assessments from 25 samples to conduct an individual participant meta-analytic factor analysis on the structure of PD criteria. Measurement invariance testing across gender, clinical status, and assessment methods indicated substantial structural differences between interview-based and self-reported measures. In interviews, a confirmatory ten-factor model with factors representing specific DSM-5 PDs showed misfit, which could be addressed by allowing for secondary loadings (using exploratory factor analysis with target rotation). In self-reports, a confirmatory ten-factor model showed stronger misfit than in interviews and exploratory solutions were less clear and suggested that a simpler model may be preferable. Factors showed some resemblance to maladaptive trait domains such as Negative Affectivity and Disinhibition when extracting five factors, but there were substantial differences in factor content between interviews and self-reports. In bifactor rotated models, a general factor showed higher explained variance in self-reports, while the content of general factors was similar across both assessment methods. Our results suggest that interview and self-reported measures of PD criteria are not structurally equivalent. To advance research on the structure of PD, it might be useful to consequently focus on the shared variance of multiple methods. For this purpose, future multimethod studies should combine interviews and self-reports with further assessment methods such as informant-reports.

show abstract

Die DPG-Praxis-Studie

Cited by 19 publications

References 37 publications

The latent structure of interpersonal problems: Validity of dimensional, categorical, and hybrid models.

The latent structure of interpersonal problems: Validity of dimensional, categorical, and hybrid models.

Exploring the predictive validity of personality disorder criteria.

Revisiting the Structure of DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorder Criteria Using Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About