Normative data for the LPFS-BF 2.0 derived from the Danish general population and relationship with psychosocial impairment.
The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 is a frequently used self-report inventory that may be used to screen for self- and interpersonal dysfunction according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders. Nevertheless, reliable norms and cut-off scores to aid interpretation and clinical decision making are still lacking. The LPFS-BF and relevant impairment measures were administered to a sociodemographically stratisfied sample of 2,002 adults from the general Danish population of whom 713 individuals eventually delivered data for inclusion in the present study. The unidimensionality of the LPFS-BF scores was established using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Item-Response Theory (IRT) analysis indicated satisfactory item functioning for all 12 items and suggested normative observed score thresholds at different latent severity levels. Meaningful associations were found between the LPFS-BF norm-based cut-off scores, quality of life, and social and occupational functioning. This study presented the first normative data for LPFS-BF, which specifically applies to Denmark but likely also other socioeconomically comparable Nordic and Western societies. These results allow for interpretation of LPFS-BF scores and clinical decision-making. Future research should corroborate these findings and compare them to scores obtained in other general population samples.
Weekers LC
，Sellbom M
，Hutsebaut J
，Simonsen S
，Bach B
... -
《-》
[The alternative model of personality disorders among the French population: Assessment with brief tools].
The aim of this work was to study whether the French versions of the brief tools available to clinicians within the framework of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) can account for the risks of personality disorders in the general population. Tools are available to accurately investigate either the Level of Personality Functioning (LPF) or the Pathological Personality Dimensions (PPD) which in turn allow the validation of the relevance of the AMPD for its criteria A and B. As these tools, such as Morey's Level of Personality Functioning Scale Self Rated (LPFS-SR) for Criteria A or the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID5) by Krueger et al. for Criteria B, are lengthy, the question arises as to the use of the short tools derived from them.
Data was collected from a sample of 433 people recruited on a volunteer basis with a complete protocol. The sample was predominantly female (83% female, 16% male, 2 people who did not wish to report their gender) and rather young (67% were 18-24 years old). The short version, the LPFS- BF of Hutsbaut et al., which we used in this work allows, as confirmed by several works, to consider on the basis of 12 items the global level of personality functioning. In order to assess the pathological dimensions of personality (PPD), we chose the short version of the Personality Inventory for DSM 5 (PID 5 BF) by Krueger et al. and used its validated French translation that satisfies the factor composition of the original version: Negative Affectivity, Antagonism, Detachment, Disinhibition and Psychoticism. To assess the intensity of personality disorders we used the dedicated subscale (Items 19 and 20) that the DSM 5 proposes in its Cross-Cutting Symptoms Measures of Level 1, in its French translation. A score higher than 2 was our Gold Standard when we tested the metric capacity of the two questionnaires to evaluate the A Criteria and then the B Criteria of the AMPD.
The overall results (Table 1) show levels that place the group in a non-clinical level. In terms of the severity of personality disorders it can be seen that 27 % are at risk of personality disorder (PDs>2). Comparing these two sub-groups (Table 1), we observed significant differences for all the factors studied, pointing towards a higher score for people at risk of PDs. A logistic regression analysis of the evaluation of persons at risk lead us to find that gender and age do not have a significant influence (p=0.225 and p=0.065 respectively) in a valid model (chi square=157, df=4, p<0.001) including the overall score on the LPFS (z=5.76, p<0.001) and the PID 5 (z=2.26, p<0.001). The Area Under the Curve (AUC=0.859) of this translation (Table 3) is consistent with the original version (AUC=0.84). It has metrological qualities (Sn=73.91%, Sp=85.33%, LR+=5.1, LR-=0.3005) that allowed us to use a threshold of 24 as a discriminant of a risk of moderate or severe personality disorder. In addition, if we followed the AMPD and considered the threshold of 24 on the LFPS-BF to be a risk score for personality disorder, we could see (Fig. 2) that the scores on the PID 5 BF fairly well reflected the expected pattern with a large AUC (0.901). According to the AMPD, the cut-points for the dimensions that would evoke the presence of criteria B in the case of the presence of criterion A (LPFS-BF>24) could be either a score greater than 2 for Negative Affectivity, a score greater than 0.8 for Detachment, Antagonism and Disinhibition, or a score greater than 1.2 for Psychoticism (Table 4).
The translation of the LPFS-BF that we used in this work has sufficient qualities to assess situations at risk of personality disorders when higher than 24. Its consistency was good (=0.84), and its factor composition in two factors (Self and Interpersonal Relations) was equivalent to the original version. The use of PID5-BF could therefore be used as a complement to the screening of AMPD A criteria, with a 25 for cut-point. The evaluation of the AMPD B criteria with the PID5-BF seemed relevant in view of our results; each of the subscales seemed to be able to correctly evaluate (AUC) persons with an LPFS-BF score at risk. However, the risk thresholds need to be confirmed in further work because of the essential role that the dimensions play in the diagnosis of types of personality disorders.
Combaluzier S
，Gouvernet B
，Auvage L
，Bourgoise C
，Murphy P
... -
《ENCEPHALE-REVUE DE PSYCHIATRIE CLINIQUE BIOLOGIQUE ET THERAPEUTIQUE》
[The German Version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF): Latent Structure, Convergent Validity and Norm Values in the General Population].
The Alternative DSM-5 Model of Personality Disorders describes the level of personality functioning, defined by impairments in self functioning (self pathology) and problems in interpersonal functioning (interpersonal pathology), as the core feature of all personality disorders. A brief self-report measure to assess the level of personality functioning, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF) comprising 12 items, was developed by a Dutch work group. The present study aimed at a first and comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the German version of the LPFS-BF in a large and representative general population sample (n=2470) as well as a non-clinical sample (n=849), particularly focusing on the factor structure, convergent validity and norm values. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the theoretically assumed and for the original version empirically confirmed two-factor solution was replicated in both samples with acceptable fit. Reliability of the total scale as well as both subscales (defined by the internal consistency) was high in both samples (McDonalds ω ≥0.83). Satisfactory convergent validity was indicated by high correlations of the German version of the LPFS-BF with other measures assessing personality dysfunction (r ≥0.72). The association with current psychological distress was similarly high. In the general population sample, the mean norm value (T50) of the total scale was 15 and T70 was 33. Although psychometric evaluations of the German LPFS-BF in patients with mental disorders, particularly those with personality disorders, have not yet been performed, this measure can be recommended as it provides a quick and user-friendly impression of the severity of personality functioning in the domains of self and interpersonal pathology.
Spitzer C
，Müller S
，Kerber A
，Hutsebaut J
，Brähler E
，Zimmermann J
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
