scholarly journals Countertransference feelings and personality disorders: A psychometric evaluation of a brief version of the Feeling Word Checklist (FWC-12)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randi Breivik ◽  
Theresa Wilberg ◽  
Julie Evensen ◽  
Jan Ivar Røssberg ◽  
Hanne Sofie Dahl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Psychometric Evaluation ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Working Alliance Inventory ◽  
Dsm Iv

Abstract Background The Feeling Word Checklist (FWC) is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure therapists’ countertransference (CT) feelings. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a brief version of the Feeling Word Checklist comprising twelve feeling words (FWC-12). The second aim was to validate the factor structure by examining the associations between the FWC-12 factors, patients’ personality pathology and therapeutic alliance (TA). Methods Therapists at 13 different outpatient units within the Norwegian Network of Personality Disorders completed the FWC-12 every 6 months during the course of treating a patient with a personality disorder (PD), over a period of up to 2.5 years. A large sample of patients with personality pathology participated in the study. The data were analysed with exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV – Axis II (SCID II) and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) were used as diagnostic instruments, and patient-rated TA was assessed using the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-SR). Results Factor analyses revealed three clinically meaningful factors: Inadequate, Idealised and Confident. These factors had acceptable psychometric properties. Most notably, a number of borderline PD criteria correlated positively with the factors Inadequate and Idealised, and negatively with the factor Confident. All the factors correlated significantly with at least one of the WAI-SR subscales. Conclusions The FWC-12 measures three clinically meaningful aspects of therapists’ CT feelings. This brief version of the FWC seems satisfactory for use in further research and in clinical contexts. Keywords: Countertransference, Feeling Word Checklist, factor analysis, personality disorder, psychometrics

scholarly journals Countertransference feelings and personality disorders: A psychometric evaluation of a brief version of the Feeling Word Checklist (FWC-BV)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randi Breivik ◽  
Theresa Wilberg ◽  
Julie Evensen ◽  
Jan Ivar Røssberg ◽  
Hanne Sofie Dahl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Psychometric Evaluation ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Working Alliance Inventory ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Coefficient Omega

Abstract Background The Feeling Word Checklist (FWC) is a self-report questionnaire designed to assess therapists’ countertransference (CT) feelings. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a brief, 12-item version of the Feeling Word Checklist (FWC-BV). The second aim was to validate the factor structure by examining the associations between the FWC-BV factors, patients’ personality pathology and therapeutic alliance (TA). Methods Therapists at 13 different outpatient units within the Norwegian Network of Personality Disorders participated, and the study includes therapies for a large sample of patients ( N =2425) with personality pathology. Over a period of 2.5 years, therapists completed the FWC-BV for each patient in therapy every 6 months. Statistical methods included exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis. Internal consistency was estimated using Mc Donald’s coefficient Omega (ω t ). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV – Axis II (SCID II) and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) were used as diagnostic instruments, and patient-rated TA was assessed using the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-SR). Results Factor analyses revealed three clinically meaningful factors: Inadequate , Idealised and Confident . These factors had acceptable psychometric properties. Most notably, a number of borderline PD criteria correlated positively with the factors Inadequate and Idealised , and negatively with the factor Confident . All the factors correlated significantly with at least one of the WAI-SR subscales Conclusions The FWC-BV measures three clinically meaningful aspects of therapists’ CT feelings. This brief version of the FWC seems satisfactory for use in further research and in clinical contexts. Keywords: Countertransference, Feeling Word Checklist, factor analysis, personality disorder, psychometrics

scholarly journals Countertransference feelings and personality disorders: A psychometric evaluation of a brief version of the Feeling Word Checklist (FWC-BV)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randi Breivik ◽  
Theresa Wilberg ◽  
Julie Evensen ◽  
Jan Ivar Røssberg ◽  
Hanne Sofie Dahl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Psychometric Evaluation ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Working Alliance Inventory ◽  
Coefficient Omega

Abstract Background The Feeling Word Checklist (FWC) is a self-report questionnaire designed to measure therapists’ countertransference (CT) feelings. The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a brief version of the Feeling Word Checklist (FWC-BV) comprising 12 feeling words. The second aim was to validate the factor structure by examining the associations between the FWC-BV factors, patients’ personality pathology and therapeutic alliance (TA). Methods Therapists at 13 different outpatient units within the Norwegian Network of Personality Disorders completed the FWC-BV every 6 months during the course of treating a patient with a personality disorder (PD), over a period of 2.5 years. A large sample of patients (N=2425) with personality pathology participated in the study. The data were analysed with exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis. Internal consistency was estimated using Mc Donald’s coefficient Omega (ωt). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV – Axis II (SCID II) and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) were used as diagnostic instruments, and patient-rated TA was assessed using the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-SR). Results Factor analyses revealed three clinically meaningful factors: Inadequate, Idealised and Confident. These factors had acceptable psychometric properties. Most notably, a number of borderline PD criteria correlated positively with the factors Inadequate and Idealised, and negatively with the factor Confident. All the factors correlated significantly with at least one of the WAI-SR subscales Conclusions The FWC-BV measures three clinically meaningful aspects of therapists’ CT feelings. This brief version of the FWC seems satisfactory for use in further research and in clinical contexts. Keywords: Countertransference, Feeling Word Checklist, factor analysis, personality disorder, psychometrics

Self-report assessment of the DSM-IV personality disorders. Measurement of trait and distress characteristics: the ADP-IV

1998 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 1179-1188 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. K. W. SCHOTTE ◽  
D. de DONCKER ◽  
C. VANKERCKHOVEN ◽  
H. VERTOMMEN ◽  
P. COSYNS
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Assessment ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Item Level ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Scoring Algorithms

Background. Self-report instruments assessing the DSM personality disorders are characterized by overdiagnosis due to their emphasis on the measurement of personality traits rather than the impairment and distress associated with the criteria.Methods. The ADP-IV, a Dutch questionnaire, introduces an alternative assessment method: each test item assesses ‘Trait’ as well as ‘Distress/impairment’ characteristics of a DSM-IV criterion. This item format allows dimensional as well as categorical diagnostic evaluations. The present study explores the validity of the ADP-IV in a sample of 659 subjects of the Flemish population.Results. The dimensional personality disorder subscales, measuring Trait characteristics, are internally consistent and display a good concurrent validity with the Wisconsin Personality Disorders Inventory. Factor analysis at the item-level resulted in 11 orthogonal factors, describing personality dimensions such as psychopathy, social anxiety and avoidance, negative affect and self-image. Factor analysis at the subscale-level identified two basic dimensions, reflecting hostile (DSM-IV Cluster B) and anxious (DSM-IV Cluster C) interpersonal attitudes. Categorical ADP-IV diagnoses are obtained using scoring algorithms, which emphasize the Trait or the Distress concepts in the diagnostic evaluation. Prevalences of ADP-IV diagnoses of any personality disorder according to these algorithms vary between 2·28 and 20·64%.Conclusions. Although further research in clinical samples is required, the present results support the validity of the ADP-IV and the potential of the measurement of trait and distress characteristics as a method for assessing personality pathology.

Assessment of Personality Disorders and Related Traits: Bridging DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5

2012 ◽  
pp. 107-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller ◽  
Lauren R. Few ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Prototype Matching ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Assessment Techniques ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
The Many ◽  
Diagnostic Criterion

The assessment of personality disorders and related traits is at an important crossroads with the imminent release of DSM-5. In this chapter we first review assessment techniques and measures as they pertain to the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and pathological personality traits, focusing in particular on the many self-report inventories and semistructured interviews that have been developed. Second, we discuss the proposed changes to the diagnosis of personality disorder in DSM-5, which are substantial, and their ramifications for the assessment of personality disorder, including the (now abandoned) proposal to replace explicit diagnostic criterion sets with a prototype matching technique, the proposal to delete and/or shift a number of diagnoses from the personality disorders section, the provision of a new dimensional trait model of personality pathology, and the provision of new rating of impairment pertaining to self and interpersonal functioning.

scholarly journals Assessing mentalization in psychotherapy: first validation of the Mentalization Imbalances Scale

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Gagliardini ◽  
Salvatore Gullo ◽  
Edgardo Caverzasi ◽  
Annalisa Boldrini ◽  
Stefano Blasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Valid Measure ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Significant Relationships ◽  
Assessment Measure ◽  
Preliminary Validation

The aim of this study was to provide data on the preliminary validation of a clinician-report multidimensional assessment measure of mentalization (Mentalization Imbalances Scale, MIS). A random national sample of psychotherapists (N=190) completed the MIS to identify mentalization imbalances, and the Personality Disorder Checklist to assess the personality disorders (PDs) of randomly selected patients currently in their care. Factor analysis confirmed the presence of six factors that represented different imbalances of mentalization: cognitive, affective, automatic, external, imbalance toward others, and imbalance toward self. We found several significant relationships between patients’ mentalization imbalances and personality pathology. Paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal PDs were predicted by an imbalance toward self, an imbalance the patients shared with histrionic, avoidant, and obsessive compulsive PDs, whereas dependent, borderline, and histrionic PDs were related to an imbalance toward others. Cognitive imbalance was related to schizoid, narcissistic, and obsessive compulsive PDs, whereas affective imbalance predicted antisocial, borderline, narcissistic and histrionic PDs. Automatic imbalance was related to schizotypal, antisocial, and borderline PDs. MIS represents a reliable and valid measure that can help clinicians at understanding patients’ specific difficulties of mentalization.

scholarly journals MCMI-III Personality Disorders, Traits, and Profiles in Adult ADHD Outpatients

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 830-839
Author(s):  
Francesco Oliva ◽  
Chiara Mangiapane ◽  
Gabriele Nibbio ◽  
Alberto Portigliatti Pomeri ◽  
Giuseppe Maina
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Profiles ◽  
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory ◽  
High Prevalence

Objective: To assess prevalence of personality traits and disorders according to Millon’s evolution-based model and to identify the most representative personality profiles among adult ADHD outpatients. Method: Personality traits and disorders were evaluated using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (MCMI-III) and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in a consecutive sample of adult ADHD outpatients ( N = 70) diagnosed by the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale–version 1.1 (ASRS-v1.1) and the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults (DIVA 2.0). Results: More than half of our sample (57.1%) showed at least one personality disorder (PD). The most prevalent PDs were paranoid, schizotypal and negativistic (18.6% for all three PDs), depressive (17.1%), and sadistic (11.4%). No patient had a borderline PD. The EFA identified three personality profiles (“sadistic-antisocial-negativistic,” “masochistic-depressive-dependent-avoidant,” and “antihistrionic-schizoid”). Conclusion: High prevalence of PDs among adult ADHD patients was confirmed. The personality profiles seemed to reflect the persistence of ADHD and related childhood comorbidities in adulthood.

scholarly journals Diagnosis and classification of personality disorder: difficulties, their resolution and implications for practice

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 388-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaydip Sarkar ◽  
Conor Duggan
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Diagnosis And Classification ◽  
Axis I ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Current Systems

SummaryThere are many difficulties associated with the diagnostic guidelines for personality disorder in the current international classificatory systems such as ICD–10 and DSM–IV. These lead not only to significant overlap with DSM Axis I disorders, resulting in high rates of diagnoses of comorbidities and multiple personality disorders, but also to lack of adequate capture of core personality pathology. The current classifications are also unhelpful in treatment selection, presumably the prime reason for assessing individuals in the first place. In this article we highlight various deficits and inadequacies related to the nosology of the current systems and suggest some strategies for dealing with these. We offer an integrated model of assessing and diagnosing personality disorders. We attempt to demonstrate how using a more integrated approach minimises or even eliminates some of the key problems highlighted in the current systems.

DSM-IV and ICD-10 personality disorders: a comparison of a self-report questionnaire (DIP-Q) with a structured interview

1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 246-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Ottosson ◽  
O Bodlund ◽  
L Ekselius ◽  
M Grann ◽  
L von Knorring ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Expert Interview ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv

SummaryObjectiveDiagnosing personality disorders according to structured expert interviews is time-consuming and costly. For epidemiological studies, self-report instruments have several advantages. The DSM-IV and ICD-10 personality questionnaire (DIP-Q) is a selfreport questionnaire constructed to identify personality disorder according to DSM-IV and ICD-10.MethodsThe DIP-Q is validated vs a structured expert interview in a clinical sample of 138 individuals. In addition, prevalence rates yielded by DIP-Q among 136 healthy volunteers are assessed and compared to expected prevalence.ResultsFor DSM-IV the agreement for any personality disorder as measured by Cohen's Kappa was 0.61 and 0.56 for ICD-10. Overall sensitivity for any personality disorder was for DSM-IV 0.84 and for ICD-10 0.85. However, specificity was lower: 0.77 and 0.70, respectively. When dimensional scores between self-report and interview for each personality disorder were compared, the intraclass correlation for the DSMIV entities was 0.37–0.87 and for the ICD-10 entities 0.33–0.73. Among healthy volunteers the base rate of personality disorders was found to be 14%.ConclusionsDIP-Q can be used as a screening instrument for personality disorders according to DSM-IV and ICD-10. Self-report questionnaires such as DIP-Q will probably play an increasingly important role in future epidemiological studies.

Comorbidity of DSM–IV Personality Disorders in Unipolar and Bipolar Affective Disorders: A Comparative Study

2004 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Schiavone ◽  
Stella Dorz ◽  
Donatella Conforti ◽  
Caterina Scarso ◽  
Giuseppe Borgherini
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Bipolar Disorders ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Unipolar Disorder ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Bipolar Patients ◽  
Bipolar Affective Disorders

The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of Personality Disorders assessed by Structured Clinical Interview for Axis-II in 155 inpatients diagnosed with Unipolar Disorder vs inpatients with Bipolar Disorder (39). The most frequent Axis II diagnoses among Unipolar inpatients were Borderline (31.6%), Dependent (25.2%), and Obsessive-Compulsive (14.2%) Personality Disorders. Among Bipolar inpatients, the most prevalent personality disorders were Borderline (41%), Narcissistic (20.5%), Dependent (12.8%), and Histrionic disorders (10.3%). Using chi squared analysis, few differences in distribution emerged between the two groups: Unipolar patients had more recurrent Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder than Bipolar patients (χ12 = 6.24, p < .005). Comorbid Narcissistic Personality Disorder was significantly more frequent in the Bipolar than in the Unipolar group (χ12 = 6.34, p < .01). Considering the three clusters (DSM–IV classification), there was a significant difference between the groups, Cluster C (fearful, avoidant) diagnoses being more frequent in the Unipolar than in the Bipolar group (48.4% vs 20.5%, respectively). Cluster B (dramatic, emotionally erratic) diagnoses were found more frequently in patients with Bipolar Disorders (71.8% vs 45.2% in Unipolar patients, χ22 = 10.1, p < .006). The differences in the distribution and prevalence of Personality Disorders between the two patient groups are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document