.png)
Objective: The researches, which were conducted after the release of DSM-III revealed some problems in the model of categorical personality disorders. The alternative model of DSM-5 for personality disorders consists of the impairment of personality functioning and the pathological personality traits. Pathological personality traits were organized in 5 large domains: Negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition and psychoticism. There are 25 specific trait facets in these large domains. Diagnoses for specific personality disorders are obtained from these traits. Each domain gives opportunity to define both maladaptive and adaptive features of personality. It has been suggested that by this procedure it would be easier to give a definition for extent of personality disorders.
Method: In this study, it was planned to investigate the validity of Turkish version of clinician’s personality trait rating form (CPTRF). Permission has been granted by A.E. Skodol, who was a member of DSM-5 Personality Disorder Work Group. Afterwards, CPTRF was translated in Turkish and then retranslated in English. CPTRF, The Quality of Object Relations Scale (QORS), The Personality Organization Diagnostic Form (PODF) and The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) were applied to 102 patients who were admitted to Erenkoy Mental Hospital and assessed for starting a psychotherapy program. Validity analysis of CPTRF was conducted.
Results: Negative affectivity domain scores of CPTRF has showed mild to moderate negative relationship with GAF, PODF-Identity dimension, and total and triangular level scores of QORS, and a moderate positive relationship with primitive level scores of QORS in the correlation analyses, which were conducted for convergent validity. Attachment domain scores of CPTRF has showed mild to moderate negative relationship with GAF, PODF-Identity and PODF-object relations dimensions, triangular level score of QORS, mature level scores of QORS, and moderate positive relationship with primitive level scores of QORS. Antagonism domain scores of CPTRF were not related with GAF scores. There were mild to moderate negative relationship with PODF-Identity, PODF-mature defenses, PODF-Global personality organization domains, QORS-controlling level, QORS, mature level, QORS-total score, and there were a mild to moderate positive relationship with PODF-immature defenses and QORS-primitive level. Impulsivity has found to be negatively related with GAF, PODF-identity, PODF-mature defenses, PODF-object relations, PODF global personality organization level, QORS-controlling level, QORS-triangular level, QORS-mature level, QORS total score, within a power range of mild to moderate, and it was found to be positively related mild to moderate with PODF-immature defenses, QORS primitive level, QORS-searching level. Psychotism has been found to be negatively related mild to moderate with GAF, PODF-identity, PODF-mature defenses, PODF-object relations, PODF global personality organization level, QORS-triangular level, QORS-mature level, QORS total score, and there were mild positive relationship with PODF-immature defenses, and strong positive relationship with QORS primitive level.
Conclusion: This preliminary data has showed that validity level of CPTRF is sufficient in all domains. Our study is proceeding for inter-rater reliability analysis, factor analysis, predictive and discriminant validity analysis.