Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Empirical evidence for a four factor framework of personality disorder organization: multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III personality disorder scales across Belgian and Danish data samples.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature145052
Source
J Pers Disord. 2010 Feb;24(1):128-50
Publication Type
Article
Date
Feb-2010
Author
Gina Rossi
Ask Elklit
Erik Simonsen
Author Affiliation
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Clinical and Life Span Psychology, Brussels, Belgium. grossi@vub.ac.be
Source
J Pers Disord. 2010 Feb;24(1):128-50
Date
Feb-2010
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Belgium
Denmark
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Psychological
Personality Assessment - statistics & numerical data
Personality Disorders - diagnosis - psychology
Personality Tests
Psychometrics
Translations
Young Adult
Abstract
The factor structure of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (Millon, Millon, Davis, & Grossman, 2006) personality disorder scales was analyzed using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis on data obtained from a Danish (N = 2030) and a Belgian (N = 1210) sample. Two-, three-, and four factor models, a priori specified using structures found by Dyce, O'Connor, Parkins, and Janzen (1997), were fitted to the data. The best fitting model was a four factor structure (RMSEA = .066, GFI = .98, CFI = .93) with partially invariant factor loadings. The robustness of this four-factor model clearly supports the efforts to organize future personality disorder description in a four-factor framework by corroborating four domains that were predominant in dimensional models (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005): Factor 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively corresponded to emotional dysregulation versus stability, antagonism versus compliance, extraversion versus introversion, and constraint versus impulsivity.
PubMed ID
20205502 View in PubMed
Less detail

Affect regulation and psychopathology in women with borderline personality disorder.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature118764
Source
Dan Med J. 2012 Nov;59(11):A4521
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-2012
Author
Rune Andersen
Nina Timmerby
Erik Simonsen
Author Affiliation
Psykiatrisk Forskningsenhed, Region Sjælland, Roskilde, Denmark. runan@regionsjaelland.dk
Source
Dan Med J. 2012 Nov;59(11):A4521
Date
Nov-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Affect
Affective Symptoms - etiology
Aggression - psychology
Borderline Personality Disorder - complications - diagnosis - psychology
Denmark
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Female
Humans
Impulsive Behavior - etiology
Interpersonal Relations
Middle Aged
Personality Inventory - standards - statistics & numerical data
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Psychometrics
Psychopathology
Self Report
Self-Injurious Behavior - etiology
Translating
Abstract
Dysfunction in affect regulation is a prominent feature that grossly impairs behavioural and interpersonal domains of experience and underlies a great deal of the psychopathology in borderline personality disorder (BPD). However, no study has yet been published that evaluates the psychometric properties of the translated Danish version of self-report measures sensitive to the different aspects and dimensions of dysfunction in affect regulation prevalent in BPD.
This study comprised a group of women diagnosed with BPD (n = 29) and a comparison group of healthy subjects (n = 29) who reported psychopathology and levels of affective instability, aggression, impulsivity and alexithymia by self-report measures.
Our results demonstrated that women with BPD have significant psychopathology and report significantly higher levels of dysfunction in separate components of affect regulation by self-report measures than the comparison group of healthy subjects. Our results also provided partial support for the psychometric appropriateness and clinical relevance of the translated Danish version of affect regulation measures.
The normative reference range indicated by our results makes the measures useful as a practical assessment tool.
not relevant.
PubMed ID
23171744 View in PubMed
Less detail