Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T23:39:14.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

H Ottosson ,
O Bodlund ,
L Ekselius ,
M Grann ,
L von Knorring ,
G Kullgren ,
E Lindström  and
S Söderberg
H Ottosson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Umeå, S-901 85Umeå
O Bodlund
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Umeå, S-901 85Umeå
L Ekselius
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
M Grann
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Umeå, S-901 85Umeå
L von Knorring
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
G Kullgren*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Umeå, S-901 85Umeå
E Lindström
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
S Söderberg
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Umeå, S-901 85Umeå
*
*Correspondence and reprints
Get access

Summary

Objective

Diagnosing 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

For 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%.

Conclusions

DIP-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.

Keywords

personality disorderDSM-IVICD-10self-reportDIP-Qstructured interview

Information

Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 13 , Issue 5 , August 1998 , pp. 246 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier, Paris 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — 3rd ed 1980 APA Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — 3rd ed revised 1987 APA Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — 4th ed revised 1994 APA Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
Arntz, A, van Beijsterveldt, B, Hoekstra, R, Hofman, A, Eussen, M, Sallaerts, SThe interrater reliability of a Dutch version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disor-ders Acta Psychiatr Scand 85 1992 394–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodlund, OTranssexualism and Personality: Methodological and Clinical Studies on Gender Identity Disorders. Doctoral dissertation 1994 University of Ume: Department of PsychiatryGoogle Scholar
Bodlund, O, Kullgren, G, Ekselius, L, Lindström, E, von Knorring, LAxis V —global assessment of functioning: Evaluation of a self-report version Acta Psychiatr Scand 90 1994 342–347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodlund, O, Kullgren, GTranssexualism: General outcome and prognostic factors Arch Sex Behaviour 25 1996 303–316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bodlund, O, Grann, M, Ottosson, H, Svanborg, CValidation of the self-report questionnaire DIP-Q in diagnosing DSM-IV per-sonality disorders: a comparison of three psychiatric samples Acta Psychiatr Scand 97 1988 433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, JA coefficient of agreement for nominal scales Educ Psychol Meas 20 1960 37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekselius, L, Lindström, E, von Knorring, L, Bodlund, O, Kullgren, GPersonality disorders in DSM-III-R as categorical or dimen-sional Acta Psychiatr Scand 88 1993 183–187CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekselius, L, Lindström, E, von Knorring, L, Bodlund, O, Kullgren, GSCID interviews and the SCID screen questionnaire as diagnos-tic tool for personality disorders in DSM-III-R Acta Psychiatr Scand 90 1994 120–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
First, MB, Spitzer, RL, Gibbon, M, Williams, JBWThe struc-tured clinical interview for DSM-III-R personality disorders (SCID-II) Part I: description J Pers Disord 9 1995 83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyler, SH, Rieder, RO, Williams, JBW, Spitzer, RL, Hendler, J, Lyons, MThe Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire: Development and preliminary results J Pers Disord 2 1988 229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyler, SE, Skodol, AE, Kellman, HD, Oldham, JM, Rosnick, LValidity of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised: Comparison with two structured interviews Am J Psychiatry 147 1990 1043–1048Google ScholarPubMed
Kellner, R, Rada, R, Andersen, T, Pathak, DThe effects of chlor-diazepoxide on self-rated depression, anxiety an well-being Psychopharmacology 65 1979 185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loranger, AW, Sartorius, N, Andreoli, A, Berger, P, Buchheim, P, Channabasavanna, SMThe International Personality Dis-order Examination Arch Gen Psychiatry 51 1994 215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maffei, C, Fossati, A, Agostoni, I, Barraco, A, Bagnato, M, Debo-rah, DInterrater reliability internal consistency of the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis-II personality dis-orders (SCID-II) version 2.0 J Pers Disord 11 1997 279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDavid, JD, Pilkonis, PAThe stability of personality disorder Diagnosis J Pers Disord 10 1996 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottosson, H, Bodlund, O, Ekselius, L, Lindström, E, von Knorring, L, Kullgren, G, Söderberg, SThe DSM-IV and ICD-10 Personality Questionnaire (DIP-Q): Construction and preliminary validation Nord J Psychiatry 49 1995 285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, JH, Yates, W, Nduaguba, MPrevalence of DSM-III per-sonality disorders in the community Soc Psychiatr Epidem 24 1989 12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrout, PE, Fleiss, JLIntraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability Psychol Bull 86 1979 420–428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skodol, AE, Spizer, RLThe development of reliable diagnostic criteria in psychiatry Ann Rev Med 33 1982 317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebersax, JSDiversity of decision-making models and the measurement of interrater agreement Psychol Bull 101 1987 140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissman, MMThe epidemiology of personality disorders: A 1990 Update J Pers Disord 7 1993 44–62Google Scholar
World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 9th revision 1978 WHO GenevaGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision 1992 WHO GenevaGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization, The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Diagnostic criteria for research 1993 WHO GenevaGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, MDiagnosing personality disorders —a review of issues and research methods Arch Gen Psychiatry 51 1994 225–245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.