This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Paul A. Pilkonis, PhD; Carol L. Heape, RN, MSN; Joseph M. Proietti, MS; Suzan W. Clark, MEd; Joshua D. McDavid, MD; Timothy E. Pitts, MEd

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52(12):1025-1033.

Abstract
Background
The reliability and validity of Axis II diagnoses were investigated in a sample of 108 patients with nonpsychotic Axis I disorders.

Methods
Patients were assessed for personality disorders (PDs) with either the Personality Disorder Examination (PDE) or the Structured Interview for DSM-III-R Personality (SIDP-R). Validity was examined by comparing interview diagnoses with "bestestimate" consensus diagnoses assigned by a panel of judges.

Results
Interrater reliabilities were excellent when using continuous data (eg, total or cluster scores; intraclass correlation coefficients, .82 to .92); they were lower with categorical diagnoses (eg, any PD vs no PD; K=0.55 and 0.58 with the two interviews). Validity coefficients (ie, k values reflecting agreement between the interviews and the consensus diagnosis) for the decision of any PD vs no PD were 0.18 (56% agreement) with the PDE and 0.37 (75% agreement) with the SIDP-R; validity coefficients for identifying cases of "marked" PD were 0.21 (62% agreement) with the PDE and 0.24 (60% agreement) with the SIDP-R.

Conclusions
There have been important advances in the development of structured interviews for Axis II diagnoses, but the findings suggest a continued need to be thoughtful about their strengths and weaknesses before accepting their results as definitive diagnostic tests. The findings also demonstrated some of the advantages of continuous vs categorical data.

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Psychiatry, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh (Pa) School of Medicine.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Assessment Procedures for Narcissistic Personality Disorder: A Comparison of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 and Best-Estimate Clinical Judgments
Miller et al.
Assessment 2008;15:483-492.
ABSTRACT  

The Structure of Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors for DSM-IV Personality Disorders: A Multivariate Twin Study
Kendler et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008;65:1438-1446.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Neuroticism and Affective Instability: The Same or Different?
Miller and Pilkonis
Am. J. Psychiatry 2006;163:839-845.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Dimensions of Personality Pathology: An Alternative to the Five-Factor Model
Shedler and Westen
Am. J. Psychiatry 2004;161:1743-1754.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Refining Personality Disorder Diagnosis: Integrating Science and Practice
Shedler and Westen
Am. J. Psychiatry 2004;161:1350-1365.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Five-Factor Model Prototypes for Personality Disorders: The Utility of Self-Reports and Observer Ratings
Miller et al.
Assessment 2004;11:127-138.
ABSTRACT  

Personality Diagnoses in Adolescence: DSM-IV Axis II Diagnoses and an Empirically Derived Alternative
Westen et al.
Am. J. Psychiatry 2003;160:952-966.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT