Moreover, these 3 instruments correctly classified the largest number of patients. The SAPAS-SR, the IPDS, and the PAS-Q had the best sensitivity (83%, 77%, and 80%, respectively) and specificity (80%, 85%, and 82%, respectively). Results: The SCID-II rate of identification of personality disorders in the 3 studies was between 48.1% and 64.1%. ![]() The following 8 assessment instruments were examined: 3 short questionnaires (a self-report form of the Standardized Assessment of Personality-Abbreviated Scale, the self-report Iowa Personality Disorder Screen, and a short self-report version of the SCID-II ) 2 longer questionnaires (the self-report SCID-II Personality Questionnaire and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory ) 1 short semistructured interview (the Quick Personality Assessment Schedule ) and 2 informant-based interviews (the Standardized Assessment of Personality and the Standardized Assessment of Personality-Abbreviated Scale for Informants ). Method: Screening instruments were examined in 3 prospective, observational, test-development studies in 3 random samples of Dutch psychiatric outpatients, using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (SCID-II) as the “gold standard.” The studies were performed from March 2004 to March 2005 (study 1: N = 195, mean age = 32.7 years), October 2006 to January 2007 (study 2: N = 79, mean age = 34.3 years), and January 2008 to October 2009 (study 3: N = 102, mean age = 33.7 years). ![]() Objective: To examine the characteristics, validity, posttest probabilities, and screening capabilities of 8 different instruments used to predict personality disorders. The Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders ![]() For more CME activities, visit .įind more articles on this and other psychiatry and CNS topics:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |