Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology
Research Abstracts

Comparing diagnostic tools in personality disorders

1.

Private Practice, Antalya-Turkey

2.

Department of Psychiatry, Ankara Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara-Turkey

3.

Department of Psychiatry, Baskent University Healthcare Group, Ankara-Turkey

Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2015; 25: Supplement S157-S158
Read: 883 Downloads: 465 Published: 26 January 2021

Objective: Personality disorders involve patterns of behavior, mood, social interaction and impulsiveness that cause distress to the person experiencing them as well as to other people in their lives. DSM-IV-TR Personality Disorder categorical classification includes ten different personality disorders defined as cluster A, paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, cluster B, histrionic, narcissistic, borderline, antisocial, cluster C avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive. In clinical settings, diagnosing personality disorders is essential for planning treatment, especially in treatment non-adherence and resistant groups. There are no measurable advantages for clinicianbased interview techniques as being more reliable and valid than self-report questionnaires, and both of the techniques are used. We aimed to compare SCID-2 (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorder) with self-report questionnaires PBQ (Personality Belief Questionnaire) and MMPI-PD (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) to determine consistency of these diagnostic tools in this study.

Methods: The participating thirty-nine patients were hospitalized at Ankara Diskapı Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital and Etlik Expert Hospital of Psychiatry Clinic; they were older than 18 years, literate, and had been diagnosed with personality disorder based on SCID-2 interview. Psychotic disorders were excluded. Socio-demographic data form, MMPI-PD, and PBQ were used. For data evaluation, non-parametric tests were used for descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation analysis for the relationship between tools.

Results: Thirty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria; of these, 19 (48.7%) were female, 20 (51.3%) were male. Mean age was 38.1±11.08. SCID-II diagnoses were clustered A, B, C for statistical evaluation. We found cluster B (61.5%) and borderline personality disorder were the most frequent (13 patients- 33.3%). The results of correlation analysis were statistically significant between self-report questionnaires PBQ, MMPI-PD and SCID-II for the correlation between PBQ-histrionic subscale and cluster B (r=0.34) and correlation between PBQ-antisocial and cluster C (r=-0.34). Comparing SCID-II personality disorder clusters with MMPI- PD subscales, moderate significant correlation has been obtained between cluster A and MMPI-PD paranoia subscale (r=0.50). Statistically significant correlation was not determined between other subscales.

Conclusion: In this study we aimed to compare diagnostic compatibility between self-report questionnaires PBQ, MMPI-PD and semistructured interview SCID-II. In an epidemiological study in Turkey, the prevalence of cluster A was found to be 7.7%, cluster B 4.1%, and cluster C 6.5%; in an outpatient setting it is reported that using PBQ (Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire) found high frequency in cluster C and low in cluster B. Hayward at al. showed that the most common personality disorder was cluster B personality disorder in patients diagnosed with axis 1 disorders. Similarly we found cluster B higher; this might reflect the fact that the participants were inpatients and co-morbid with axis 1 disorders. In conclusion, correlation between self-report questionnaires and interview techniques has been found low and reached different results in diagnosing personality disorders. More comprehensive studies are required to develop diagnostic tools for personality disorders.

Files
EISSN 2475-0581