Skip header and navigation

Refine By

4 records – page 1 of 1.

Continuity between interview-rated personality disorders and self-reported DSM-5 traits in a Danish psychiatric sample.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature291088
Source
Personal Disord. 2017 Jul; 8(3):261-267
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
Jul-2017
Author
Bo Bach
Jaime Anderson
Erik Simonsen
Author Affiliation
Research Unit, Region Zealand.
Source
Personal Disord. 2017 Jul; 8(3):261-267
Date
Jul-2017
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Adult
Denmark
Female
Humans
Interview, Psychological - standards
Male
Personality Disorders - diagnosis - physiopathology
Personality Inventory - standards
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards
Young Adult
Abstract
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) Section III offers an alternative model for the diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs), including 25 pathological personality trait facets organized into 5 trait domains. To maintain continuity with the categorical PD diagnoses found in DSM-5 Section II, specified sets of facets are configured into familiar PD types. The current study aimed to evaluate the continuity across the Section II and III models of PDs. A sample of 142 psychiatric outpatients were administered the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and rated with the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV Axis II disorders. We investigated whether the DSM-5 Section III facet-profiles would be associated with their respective Section II counterparts, as well as determining whether additional facets could augment the prediction of the Section II disorders. Results showed that, overall, the interview-rated DSM-5 Section II disorders were most strongly associated with expected self-reported Section III traits. Results also supported the addition of facets not included in the proposed Section III PD criteria. These findings partly underscore the continuity between the Section II and III models of PDs and suggest how it may be enhanced; however, additional research is needed to further evaluate where continuity exists, where it does not exist, and how the traits system could be improved. (PsycINFO Database Record
PubMed ID
26784892 View in PubMed
Less detail

Reliability and Hierarchical Structure of DSM-5 Pathological Traits in a Danish Mixed Sample.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature276683
Source
J Pers Disord. 2016 Feb;30(1):112-29
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2016
Author
Sune Bo
Bo Bach
Erik Lykke Mortensen
Erik Simonsen
Source
J Pers Disord. 2016 Feb;30(1):112-29
Date
Feb-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Denmark
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Female
Humans
Language
Male
Personality
Personality Disorders - diagnosis - psychology
Personality Inventory - standards
Reproducibility of Results
Sampling Studies
Self Report
Translations
Abstract
In this study we assessed the DSM-5 trait model in a large Danish sample (n = 1,119) with respect to reliability of the applied Danish version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) self-report form by means of internal consistency and item discrimination. In addition, we tested whether the five-factor structure of the DSM-5 trait model can be replicated in a Danish independent sample using the PID-5 self-report form. Finally, we examined the hierarchical structure of DSM-5 traits. In terms of internal consistency and item discrimination, the applied PID-5 scales were generally found reliable and functional; our data resembled the five-factor structure of previous findings, and we identified a hierarchical structure from one to five factors that was conceptually reasonable and corresponded with existing findings. These results support the new DSM-5 trait model and suggest that it can be generalized to other languages and cultures.
PubMed ID
25905735 View in PubMed
Less detail

The alternative DSM-5 personality disorder traits criterion: A comparative examination of three self-report forms in a Danish population.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature278993
Source
Personal Disord. 2016 Apr;7(2):124-35
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-2016
Author
Bo Bach
Jessica L Maples-Keller
Sune Bo
Erik Simonsen
Source
Personal Disord. 2016 Apr;7(2):124-35
Date
Apr-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Denmark - epidemiology
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Personality Disorders - classification - epidemiology
Personality Inventory - standards
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards
Psychometrics - instrumentation
Reproducibility of Results
Self Report
Young Adult
Abstract
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013a) offers an alternative model for Personality Disorders (PDs) in Section III, which consists in part of a pathological personality traits criterion measured with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). The PID-5 selfreport instrument currently exists in the original 220-item form, a short 100-item form, and a brief 25-item form. For clinicians and researchers, the choice of a particular PID- 5 form depends on feasibility, but also reliability and validity. The goal of the present study was to examine the psychometric qualities of all 3 PID-5 forms, simultaneously, based on a Danish sample (N = 1376) of 451 psychiatric outpatients and 925 community-dwelling participants. Scale reliability and factorial validity were satisfactory across all 3 PID-5 forms. The correlational profiles of the short and brief PID-5 forms with clinician-rated PD dimensions were nearly identical with that of the original PID-5 (rICC = .99 and .95, respectively). All 3 forms discriminated appropriately between psychiatric patients and community-dwelling individuals. This supports that all 3 PID-5 forms can be used to reliably and validly assess PD traits and provides initial support for the use of the abbreviated PID-5 forms in a European population. However, only the original 220-item form and the short 100-item form capture all 25 trait facets, and the brief 25-item form may be ideally limited to preliminary screening or situations with substantial time restrictions.
PubMed ID
26642229 View in PubMed
Less detail

Third-wave cognitive therapy versus mentalisation-based treatment for major depressive disorder: a randomised clinical trial.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature266353
Source
BMJ Open. 2014;4(8):e004903
Publication Type
Article
Date
2014
Author
Janus Christian Jakobsen
Christian Gluud
Mickey Kongerslev
Kirsten Aaskov Larsen
Per Sørensen
Per Winkel
Theis Lange
Ulf Søgaard
Erik Simonsen
Source
BMJ Open. 2014;4(8):e004903
Date
2014
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Cognitive Therapy - methods
Denmark
Depressive Disorder, Major - psychology - therapy
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Theory of Mind
Treatment Outcome
Abstract
To compare the benefits and harms of third-wave cognitive therapy versus mentalisation-based therapy in a small sample of depressed participants.
The trial was conducted at an outpatient psychiatric clinic for non-psychotic patients in Roskilde, Denmark.
44 consecutive adult participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder.
18 weeks of third-wave cognitive therapy (n=22) versus 18 weeks of mentalisation-based treatment (n=22).
The primary outcome was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS) at end of treatment (18 weeks). Secondary outcomes were: remission (HDRS
Notes
Cites: Sci Eng Ethics. 2000 Jan;6(1):71-711273440
Cites: Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Sep;170(9):1041-5024030613
Cites: Psychopharmacol Bull. 1973 Jan;9(1):13-284682398
Cites: Br J Clin Psychol. 1984 May;23 ( Pt 2):93-96722384
Cites: J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986 Feb;54(1):54-93958302
Cites: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991 Sep;48(9):851-51929776
Cites: Stat Med. 1994 Jul 15-30;13(13-14):1341-52; discussion 1353-67973215
Cites: Int J Psychoanal. 1996 Jun;77 ( Pt 3):519-368818768
Cites: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960 Feb;23:56-6214399272
Cites: Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Dec;161(12):2163-7715569884
Cites: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006 Jul;63(7):757-6616818865
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jan;61(1):64-7518083463
Cites: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007 Dec;75(6):1000-518085916
Cites: PLoS Med. 2008 Feb;5(2):e4518303940
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;61(8):763-918411040
Cites: Behav Res Ther. 2009 May;47(5):366-7319249017
Cites: Am J Psychiatry. 2009 Dec;166(12):1355-6419833787
Cites: JAMA. 2010 Mar 24;303(12):1180-720332404
Cites: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Apr;78(2):169-8320350028
Cites: Am J Psychiatry. 2010 May;167(5):487-820439392
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):726-3220335313
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(6):CD00650720556767
Cites: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:9020920306
Cites: Epilepsy Behav. 2010 Nov;19(3):247-5420851055
Cites: J Affect Disord. 2011 Apr;130(1-2):138-4421093925
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e1904421556370
Cites: Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2011 Jun;79(6):330-921412690
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e2289021829664
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e2829922174786
Cites: J Affect Disord. 2012 Mar;137(1-3):4-1421501877
Cites: Psychol Med. 2012 Jul;42(7):1343-5722051174
Cites: BMJ. 2012;344:e386322705814
Cites: Psychiatry Res. 2013 Dec 15;210(2):672-423850430
Cites: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:3424588900
Cites: BMC Psychiatry. 2012;12:23223253305
Cites: J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Mar;201(3):202-723407204
Cites: Ugeskr Laeger. 2003 Apr 14;165(16):1659-6212756823
PubMed ID
25138802 View in PubMed
Less detail