THE CONCURRENT VALIDITY OF 3 SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY

被引:36
|
作者
KURTZ, JE [1 ]
MOREY, LC [1 ]
TOMARKEN, AJ [1 ]
机构
[1] VANDERBILT UNIV, DEPT PSYCHOL, NASHVILLE, TN 37240 USA
关键词
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; ASSESSMENT;
D O I
10.1007/BF01371382
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
The recent accumulation of self-report measures of borderline personality disorder (BPD) affords the opportunity to evaluate both the construct validity of the concept and the quality of these measures. This study examines the relationship among three recently developed self-report instruments for assessing BPD from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), the MMPI Personality Disorders Scales (MPD; Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985), and the Bell Object Relations Inventory (BORI; Bell, Billington, & Becker, 1986). Data on the three measures were provided by 119 undergraduate subjects from a southeastern university. A correlational analysis addresses the convergence of these measures of BPD, their divergence from measures of different but related traits, and their independence from variance due to method. Application of the Campbell-Fiske (1959) criteria indicates adequate convergence for all the BPD measures but a lack of discriminant validity for the BORI scales. The fit of the data to a structural model of construct validity is tested using confirmatory factor analysis, and these results are consistent with the hypothesis of a latent borderline trait factor independent of measurement method factors. In sum, the construct validity of the borderline personality concept using self-report methodologies receives support, and a strong association between borderline personality and paranoid phenomena is also suggested.
引用
收藏
页码:255 / 266
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Assessing adherence to dermatology treatments: a review of self-report and electronic measures
    Greenlaw, Sheila M.
    Yentzer, Brad A.
    O'Neill, Jenna L.
    Balkrishnan, Rajesh
    Feldman, Steven R.
    SKIN RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 2010, 16 (02) : 253 - 258
  • [42] The assessment of views on ageing: a review of self-report measures and innovative extensions
    Verena Klusmann
    Nanna Notthoff
    Ann-Kristin Beyer
    Anne Blawert
    Martina Gabrian
    European Journal of Ageing, 2020, 17 : 403 - 433
  • [43] Differences in self-report measures by adolescent sex offender risk group
    Smith, S
    Wampler, R
    Jones, J
    Reifman, A
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OFFENDER THERAPY AND COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY, 2005, 49 (01) : 82 - 106
  • [44] Assessing Insomnia Medicated Patients with Self-Report Measures: Practical Implications
    Daniel Ruivo Marques
    Vanda Clemente
    Sleep and Vigilance, 2024, 8 (2) : 353 - 355
  • [45] Self-Report Measures of Hand Pain Intensity: Current Evidence and Recommendations
    Castarlenas, Elena
    de la Vega, Rocio
    Jensen, Mark P.
    Miro, Jordi
    HAND CLINICS, 2016, 32 (01) : 11 - +
  • [46] The Assessment of Mindfulness with Self-Report Measures: Existing Scales and Open Issues
    Bergomi, Claudia
    Tschacher, Wolfgang
    Kupper, Zeno
    MINDFULNESS, 2013, 4 (03) : 191 - 202
  • [47] The Assessment of Mindfulness with Self-Report Measures: Existing Scales and Open Issues
    Claudia Bergomi
    Wolfgang Tschacher
    Zeno Kupper
    Mindfulness, 2013, 4 : 191 - 202
  • [48] Validity of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scales (SRP-III Full and Short Versions) in a Community Sample
    Gordts, Sarah
    Uzieblo, Kasia
    Neumann, Craig
    Van den Bussche, Eva
    Rossi, Gina
    ASSESSMENT, 2017, 24 (03) : 308 - 325
  • [49] Using existing self-report inventories to measure the psychopathic personality traits of Fearless Dominance and Impulsive Antisociality
    Witt, Edward A.
    Donnellan, M. Brent
    Blonigen, Daniel M.
    JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY, 2009, 43 (06) : 1006 - 1016
  • [50] Socially desirable responding and the measurement of violent and criminal risk: Self-report validity
    Kroner, Daryl G.
    Mills, Jeremy F.
    Morgan, Robert D.
    JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICE, 2006, 6 (04) : 27 - 42