Comparing the Temporal Stability of Self-Report and Interview Assessed Personality Disorder

Douglas B. Samuel, Christopher J. Hopwood, Emily B. Ansell, Leslie C. Morey, Charles A. Sanislow, John C. Markowitz, Shirley Yen, M. Tracie Shea, Andrew E. Skodol, Carlos M. Grilo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Findings from several large-scale, longitudinal studies over the last decade have challenged the long-held assumption that personality disorders (PDs) are stable and enduring. However, the findings, including those from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS; Gunderson et al., 2000), rely primarily on results from semistructured interviews. As a result, less is known about the stability of PD scores from self-report questionnaires, which differ from interviews in important ways (e.g., source of the ratings, item development, and instrument length) that might increase temporal stability. The current study directly compared the stability of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) PD constructs assessed via the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP-2; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press) with those from the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (Zanarini, Frankenburg, Sickel, & Yong, 1996) over 2 years in a sample of 529 CLPS participants. Specifically, we compared dimensional and categorical representations from both measures in terms of rank-order and mean-level stability. Results indicated that the dimensional scores from the self-report questionnaire had significantly greater rank-order (mean r = .69 vs. .59) and mean-level (mean d = 0.21 vs. 0.30) stability. In contrast, categorical diagnoses from the two measures evinced comparable rank-order (mean κ = .38 vs. .37) and mean-level stability (median prevalence rate decrease of 3.5% vs. 5.6%). These findings suggest the stability of PD constructs depends at least partially on the method of assessment and are discussed in the context of previous research and future conceptualizations of personality pathology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)670-680
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of abnormal psychology
Volume120
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2011

Fingerprint

Personality Disorders
Self Report
Interviews
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Personality
Longitudinal Studies
Appointments and Schedules
Pathology
Research

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Biological Psychiatry

Cite this

Samuel, D. B., Hopwood, C. J., Ansell, E. B., Morey, L. C., Sanislow, C. A., Markowitz, J. C., ... Grilo, C. M. (2011). Comparing the Temporal Stability of Self-Report and Interview Assessed Personality Disorder. Journal of abnormal psychology, 120(3), 670-680. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022647
Samuel, Douglas B. ; Hopwood, Christopher J. ; Ansell, Emily B. ; Morey, Leslie C. ; Sanislow, Charles A. ; Markowitz, John C. ; Yen, Shirley ; Shea, M. Tracie ; Skodol, Andrew E. ; Grilo, Carlos M. / Comparing the Temporal Stability of Self-Report and Interview Assessed Personality Disorder. In: Journal of abnormal psychology. 2011 ; Vol. 120, No. 3. pp. 670-680.
@article{f965a498bc764afc97ce078122b4b1ea,
title = "Comparing the Temporal Stability of Self-Report and Interview Assessed Personality Disorder",
abstract = "Findings from several large-scale, longitudinal studies over the last decade have challenged the long-held assumption that personality disorders (PDs) are stable and enduring. However, the findings, including those from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS; Gunderson et al., 2000), rely primarily on results from semistructured interviews. As a result, less is known about the stability of PD scores from self-report questionnaires, which differ from interviews in important ways (e.g., source of the ratings, item development, and instrument length) that might increase temporal stability. The current study directly compared the stability of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) PD constructs assessed via the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP-2; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press) with those from the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (Zanarini, Frankenburg, Sickel, & Yong, 1996) over 2 years in a sample of 529 CLPS participants. Specifically, we compared dimensional and categorical representations from both measures in terms of rank-order and mean-level stability. Results indicated that the dimensional scores from the self-report questionnaire had significantly greater rank-order (mean r = .69 vs. .59) and mean-level (mean d = 0.21 vs. 0.30) stability. In contrast, categorical diagnoses from the two measures evinced comparable rank-order (mean κ = .38 vs. .37) and mean-level stability (median prevalence rate decrease of 3.5{\%} vs. 5.6{\%}). These findings suggest the stability of PD constructs depends at least partially on the method of assessment and are discussed in the context of previous research and future conceptualizations of personality pathology.",
author = "Samuel, {Douglas B.} and Hopwood, {Christopher J.} and Ansell, {Emily B.} and Morey, {Leslie C.} and Sanislow, {Charles A.} and Markowitz, {John C.} and Shirley Yen and Shea, {M. Tracie} and Skodol, {Andrew E.} and Grilo, {Carlos M.}",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1037/a0022647",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
pages = "670--680",
journal = "Journal of Abnormal Psychology",
issn = "0021-843X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

Samuel, DB, Hopwood, CJ, Ansell, EB, Morey, LC, Sanislow, CA, Markowitz, JC, Yen, S, Shea, MT, Skodol, AE & Grilo, CM 2011, 'Comparing the Temporal Stability of Self-Report and Interview Assessed Personality Disorder', Journal of abnormal psychology, vol. 120, no. 3, pp. 670-680. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022647

Comparing the Temporal Stability of Self-Report and Interview Assessed Personality Disorder. / Samuel, Douglas B.; Hopwood, Christopher J.; Ansell, Emily B.; Morey, Leslie C.; Sanislow, Charles A.; Markowitz, John C.; Yen, Shirley; Shea, M. Tracie; Skodol, Andrew E.; Grilo, Carlos M.

In: Journal of abnormal psychology, Vol. 120, No. 3, 08.2011, p. 670-680.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing the Temporal Stability of Self-Report and Interview Assessed Personality Disorder

AU - Samuel, Douglas B.

AU - Hopwood, Christopher J.

AU - Ansell, Emily B.

AU - Morey, Leslie C.

AU - Sanislow, Charles A.

AU - Markowitz, John C.

AU - Yen, Shirley

AU - Shea, M. Tracie

AU - Skodol, Andrew E.

AU - Grilo, Carlos M.

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - Findings from several large-scale, longitudinal studies over the last decade have challenged the long-held assumption that personality disorders (PDs) are stable and enduring. However, the findings, including those from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS; Gunderson et al., 2000), rely primarily on results from semistructured interviews. As a result, less is known about the stability of PD scores from self-report questionnaires, which differ from interviews in important ways (e.g., source of the ratings, item development, and instrument length) that might increase temporal stability. The current study directly compared the stability of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) PD constructs assessed via the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP-2; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press) with those from the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (Zanarini, Frankenburg, Sickel, & Yong, 1996) over 2 years in a sample of 529 CLPS participants. Specifically, we compared dimensional and categorical representations from both measures in terms of rank-order and mean-level stability. Results indicated that the dimensional scores from the self-report questionnaire had significantly greater rank-order (mean r = .69 vs. .59) and mean-level (mean d = 0.21 vs. 0.30) stability. In contrast, categorical diagnoses from the two measures evinced comparable rank-order (mean κ = .38 vs. .37) and mean-level stability (median prevalence rate decrease of 3.5% vs. 5.6%). These findings suggest the stability of PD constructs depends at least partially on the method of assessment and are discussed in the context of previous research and future conceptualizations of personality pathology.

AB - Findings from several large-scale, longitudinal studies over the last decade have challenged the long-held assumption that personality disorders (PDs) are stable and enduring. However, the findings, including those from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS; Gunderson et al., 2000), rely primarily on results from semistructured interviews. As a result, less is known about the stability of PD scores from self-report questionnaires, which differ from interviews in important ways (e.g., source of the ratings, item development, and instrument length) that might increase temporal stability. The current study directly compared the stability of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV) PD constructs assessed via the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP-2; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press) with those from the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (Zanarini, Frankenburg, Sickel, & Yong, 1996) over 2 years in a sample of 529 CLPS participants. Specifically, we compared dimensional and categorical representations from both measures in terms of rank-order and mean-level stability. Results indicated that the dimensional scores from the self-report questionnaire had significantly greater rank-order (mean r = .69 vs. .59) and mean-level (mean d = 0.21 vs. 0.30) stability. In contrast, categorical diagnoses from the two measures evinced comparable rank-order (mean κ = .38 vs. .37) and mean-level stability (median prevalence rate decrease of 3.5% vs. 5.6%). These findings suggest the stability of PD constructs depends at least partially on the method of assessment and are discussed in the context of previous research and future conceptualizations of personality pathology.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051819999&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80051819999&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0022647

DO - 10.1037/a0022647

M3 - Article

C2 - 21443287

AN - SCOPUS:80051819999

VL - 120

SP - 670

EP - 680

JO - Journal of Abnormal Psychology

JF - Journal of Abnormal Psychology

SN - 0021-843X

IS - 3

ER -