Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T14:33:02.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A psychometric evaluation of the DSM-IV borderline personality disorder criteria: age and sex moderation of criterion functioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2009

S. H. Aggen ,
M. C. Neale ,
E. Røysamb ,
T. Reichborn-Kjennerud  and
K. S. Kendler
S. H. Aggen*
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
M. C. Neale
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA Departments of Psychiatry and Human Genetics, Medical College of Virginia of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; and the Virginia Institute for Psychiatry and Behavioral Genetics, Richmond, VA, USA
E. Røysamb
Affiliation:
Division of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Norway Institute of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway
T. Reichborn-Kjennerud
Affiliation:
Division of Mental Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Norway Institute of Psychiatry, University of Oslo, Norway Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
K. S. Kendler
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA Departments of Psychiatry and Human Genetics, Medical College of Virginia of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond; and the Virginia Institute for Psychiatry and Behavioral Genetics, Richmond, VA, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: S. H. Aggen, Ph.D., Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Psychiatry, PO Box 980126, Richmond, VA23298-0126, USA. (Email: saggen@vcu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Despite its importance as a paradigmatic personality disorder, little is known about the measurement invariance of the DSM-IV borderline personality disorder (BPD) criteria; that is, whether the criteria assess the disorder equivalently across different groups.

Method

BPD criteria were evaluated at interview in 2794 young adult Norwegian twins. Analyses, based on item-response modeling, were conducted to test for differential age and sex moderation of the individual BPD criteria characteristics given factor-level covariate effects.

Results

Confirmatory factor analytic results supported a unidimensional structure for the nine BPD criteria. Compared to males, females had a higher BPD factor mean, larger factor variance and there was a significant age by sex interaction on the factor mean. Strong differential sex and age by sex interaction effects were found for the ‘impulsivity’ criterion factor loading and threshold. Impulsivity related to the BPD factor poorly in young females but improved significantly in older females. Males reported more impulsivity compared to females and this difference increased with age. The ‘affective instability’ threshold was also moderated, with males reporting less than expected.

Conclusions

The results suggest the DSM-IV BPD ‘impulsivity’ and ‘affective instability’ criteria function differentially with respect to age and sex, with impulsivity being especially problematic. If verified, these findings have important implications for the interpretation of prior research with these criteria. These non-invariant age and sex effects may be identifying criteria-level expression features relevant to BPD nosology and etiology. Criterion functioning assessed using modern psychometric methods should be considered in the development of DSM-V.

Keywords

DSM-IV borderline criteriaitem analysesmeasurement invariance
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 39 , Issue 12 , December 2009 , pp. 1967 - 1978
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

References

Akaike, H (1981). Likelihood of a model and information criteria. Journal of Econometrics 16, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akaike, H (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52, 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APA (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn. American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Balsis, S, Gleason, ME, Woods, CM, Oltmanns, TF (2007). An item response theory analysis of DSM-IV personality disorder criteria across younger and older age groups. Psychology and Aging 22, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, PM (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, PM, Bonett, DG (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, MA, Hilsenroth, MJ, Castlebury, FD (1997). Content validity of the DSM-IV borderline and narcissistic personality disorder criteria sets. Comprehensive Psychiatry 38, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, RD, Aitkin, M (1981). Marginal maximum-likelihood estimation of item parameters: application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 46, 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, RD, Gibbons, R, Muraki, E (1988). Full-information item factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement 12, 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsboom, D (2006). When does measurement invariance matter? Medical Care 44, S176–S181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D, Mellenbergh, GJ, van Heerden, J (2002). Different kinds of DIF: a distinction between absolute and relative forms of measurement invariance and bias. Applied Psychological Measurement 26, 433–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feske, U, Kirisci, L, Tarter, RE, Pilkonis, PA (2007). An application of item response theory to the DSM-III-R criteria for borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders 21, 418–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, EH, Blashfield, RK (2003). Gender bias in the diagnosis of personality disorders: the roles of base rates and social stereotypes. Journal of Personality Disorders 17, 431–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flora, DB, Curran, PJ (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods 9, 466–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fossati, A, Beauchaine, TP, Grazioli, F, Borroni, S, Carretta, I, De Vecchi, C, Cortinovis, F, Danelli, E, Maffei, C (2006). Confirmatory factor analyses of DSM-IV Cluster C personality disorder criteria. Journal of Personality Disorders 20, 186–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grilo, CM, McGlashan, TH, Morey, LC, Gunderson, JG, Skodol, AE, Shea, MT, Sanislow, CA, Zanarini, MC, Bender, D, Oldham, JM, Dyck, I, Stout, RL (2001). Internal consistency, intercriterion overlap and diagnostic efficiency of criteria sets for DSM-IV schizotypal, borderline, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 104, 264–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, JR, Magnus, P, Tambs, K (2002). The Norwegian Institute of Public Health Twin Panel: a description of the sample and program of research. Twin Research 5, 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, N (2003). Categorical versus dimensional models of mental disorder: the taxometric evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 37, 696–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, PW, Wainer, H (1993). Differential Item Functioning. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Jane, JS, Oltmanns, TF, South, SC, Turkheimer, E (2007). Gender bias in diagnostic criteria for personality disorders: an item response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116, 166–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansen, M, Karterud, S, Pedersen, G, Gude, T, Falkum, E (2004). An investigation of the prototype validity of the borderline DSM-IV construct. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 109, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindsay, KA, Sankis, LM, Widiger, TA (2000). Gender bias in self-report personality disorder inventories. Journal of Personality Disorders 14, 218–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masters, GN (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 47, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, RP (1981). The dimensionality of tests and items. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 34, 100–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, W (1993). Measurement invariance, factor-analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58, 525–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthen, BO, Muthen, LK (2004). Mplus User's Guide, 3rd edn. Muthen & Muthen: Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Neale, MC, Aggen, SH, Maes, HH, Kubarych, TS, Schmitt, JE (2006). Methodological issues in the assessment of substance use phenotypes. Addictive Behaviors 31, 1010–1034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neale, MC, Boker, SM, Xie, G, Maes, HH (2004). Mx: Statistical Modeling, 6th edn. Department of Psychiatry, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University: Box 980126, Richmond, VA 23298.Google Scholar
Paris, J (2007). The nature of borderline personality disorder: multiple dimensions, multiple symptoms, but one category. Journal of Personality Disorders 21, 457–473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfohl, B, Blum, N, Zimmerman, M (1995). Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP-IV). Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa: Iowa City.Google Scholar
Rothschild, L, Cleland, C, Haslam, N, Zimmerman, M (2003). A taxometric study of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112, 657–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanislow, CA, Grilo, CM, McGlashan, TH (2000). Factor analysis of the DSM-III-R borderline personality disorder criteria in psychiatric inpatients. American Journal of Psychiatry 157, 1629–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanislow, CA, Grilo, CM, Morey, LC, Bender, DS, Skodol, AE, Gunderson, JG, Shea, MT, Stout, RL, Zanarini, MC, McGlashan, TH (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of DSM-IV criteria for borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry 159, 284–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skodol, AE, Gunderson, JG, Pfohl, B, Widiger, TA, Livesley, WJ, Siever, LJ (2002). The borderline diagnosis I: Psychopathology comorbidity, and personality structure. Biological Psychiatry 51, 936–950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson, J, Meares, R, Comerford, A (2003). Diminished impulsivity in older patients with borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry 160, 165–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, J, Reeves, M (2007). Structure of borderline personality disorder symptoms in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology 63, 805–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thissen, D (1991). Multilog Users' Guide: Multiple Categorical Item Analysis and Test Scoring using Item Response Theory. Scientific Software, Inc.: Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Torgersen, S, Kringlen, E, Cramer, V (2001). The prevalence of personality disorders in a community sample. Archives of General Psychiatry 58, 590–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trull, TJ, Widiger, TA, Guthrie, P (1990). Categorical versus dimensional status of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 99, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, LR, Lewis, C (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widiger, TA (1998). Invited essay: sex biases in the diagnosis of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders 12, 95–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed