Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Concordance between personality disorder assessment methods

  • G. Nestadt (a1), C. Di (a2), J. F. Samuels (a1), Y.-J. Cheng (a3), O. J. Bienvenu (a1), I. M. Reti (a1), P. Costa (a4), W. W. Eaton (a5) and K. Bandeen-Roche (a6)...

Abstract

Background

Studies have criticized the low level of agreement between the various methods of personality disorder (PD) assessment. This is an important issue for research and clinical purposes.

Method

Seven hundred and forty-two participants in the Hopkins Epidemiology of Personality Disorders Study (HEPS) were assessed on two occasions using the Personality Disorder Schedule (PDS) and the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). The concordance between the two diagnostic methods for all DSM-IV PDs was assessed using standard methods and also two item response analytic approaches designed to take account of measurement error: a latent trait-based approach and a generalized estimating equations (GEE)-based approach, with post-hoc adjustment.

Results

Raw criteria counts, using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), κ and odds ratio (OR), showed poor concordance. The more refined statistical methods showed a moderate to moderately high level of concordance between the methods for most PDs studied. Overall, the PDS produced lower prevalences of traits but higher precision of measurement than the IPDE. Specific criteria within each PD showed varying endorsement thresholds and precision for ascertaining the disorder.

Conclusions

Concordance in the raw measurement of the individual PD criteria between the two clinical methods is lacking. However, based on two statistical methods that adjust for differential endorsement thresholds and measurement error in the assessments, we deduce that the PD constructs themselves can be measured with a moderate degree of confidence regardless of the clinical approach used. This may suggest that the individual criteria for each PD are, in and of themselves, less specific for diagnosis, but as a group the criteria for each PD usefully identify specific PD constructs.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Address for correspondence: Dr G. Nestadt, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Meyer 113, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. (Email: gnestadt@jhmi.edu)

References

Hide All
Anthony, JC, Folstein, M, Romanoski, AJ, Von Korff, MR, Nestadt, GR, Chahal, R, Merchant, A, Brown, CH, Shapiro, S, Kramer, M, Gruenberg, EM (1985). Comparison of the lay Diagnostic Interview Schedule and a standardized psychiatric diagnosis. Experience in eastern Baltimore. Archives of General Psychiatry 42, 667675.
APA (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn (DSM-IV). American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.
Digby, PGN (1983). Approximating the tetrachoric correlation coefficient. Biometrics 39, 753757.
Eaton, WW, Anthony, JC, Romanoski, A, Tien, A, Gallo, J, Cai, G, Neufeld, K, Schlaepfer, T, Laugharne, J, Chen, LS (1998). Onset and recovery from panic disorder in the Baltimore ECA follow-up. British Journal of Psychiatry 173, 501507.
Heagerty, PJ, Zeger, SL (2000). Multivariate continuation ratio models: connections and caveats. Biometrics 56, 719732.
Huang, GH, Bandeen-Roche, K, Rubin, GS (2002). Building marginal models for multiple ordinal measurements. Applied Statistics 51, 3757.
Loranger, AW, Sartorius, N, Andreoli, A, Berger, P, Buchheim, P, Channabasavanna, SM, Coid, B, Dahl, A, Diekstra, RFW, Ferguson, B, Jacobsberg, LB, Mombour, W, Pull, C, Ono, Y, Regier, DA (1994). The International Personality Disorder Examination. Archives of General Psychiatry 51, 215224.
Lord, FM (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
Nestadt, G, Di, C, Samuels, JF, Bienvenu, OJ, Reti, IM, Costa, P, Eaton, WW, Bandeen-Roche, K (2010). The stability of DSM personality disorders over twelve to eighteen years. Journal of Psychiatric Research 44, 17.
Perry, JC (1992). Problems and considerations in the valid assessment of personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry 149, 16451653.
Romanoski, AJ, Nestadt, G, Chahal, R, Merchant, A, Folstein, MF, Gruenberg, EM, McHugh, PR (1998). Interobserver reliability of a ‘Standardized Psychiatric Examination’ (SPE) for case ascertainment (DSM-III). Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders 176, 6371.
Samuels, J, Eaton, WW, Bienvenu, OJ 3rd, Brown, CH, Costa, PT Jr., Nestadt, G (2002). Prevalence and correlates of personality disorders in a community sample. British Journal of Psychiatry 180, 536542.
Samuels, JF, Nestadt, G, Romanoski, AJ, Folstein, MF, McHugh, PR (1994). DSM-III personality disorders in the community. American Journal of Psychiatry 151, 10551062.
Zeger, SL, Liang, KY (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics 42, 121130.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed