A systematic review of measurement uncertainty visualizations in the context of standardized assessments.

This systematic review summarized findings of 29 studies evaluating visual presentation formats appropriate for communicating measurement uncertainty associated with standardized clinical assessment instruments. Studies were identified through systematic searches of multiple databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science). Strikingly, we found no studies which were conducted using samples of clinicians and included clinical decision-making scenarios. Included studies did however find that providing participants with information about measurement uncertainty may increase awareness of uncertainty and promote more optimal decision making. Formats which visualize the shape of the underlying probability distribution were found to promote more accurate probability estimation and appropriate interpretations of the underlying probability distribution shape. However, participants in the included studies did not seem to benefit from the additional information provided by such plots during decision-making tasks. Further explorations into how presentations of measurement uncertainty impact clinical decision making are needed to examine whether findings of the included studies generalize to clinician populations. This review provides an important overview of pitfalls associated with formats commonly used to communicate measurement uncertainty in clinical assessment instruments, and a potential starting point for further explorations into promising alternatives. Finally, our review offers specific recommendations on how remaining research questions might be addressed.

Do Flexible Administration Procedures Promote Individualized Clinical Assessments? An Explorative Analysis of How Clinicians Utilize the Funnel Structure of the SCID-5-AMPD Module I: LPFS.

The current study examined clinicians' utilization of the SCID-5-AMPD-I funnel structure. Across 237 interviews, conducted as part of the NorAMP study, we found that clinicians administered on average 2-3 adjacent levels under each subdomain, effectively administering only about 50% of available items. Comparing administration patterns of interviews, no two interviews contained the exact same set of administered items. On average, when comparing individual interviews, only about half of the administered items in each interview were administered in both interviews. Cross-classified mixed effects models were estimated to examine the factors affecting item administration. Results indicated that the interplay between patient preliminary scores and item level had a substantial impact on item administration, suggesting clinicians tend to administer items corresponding to expected patient severity. Overall, our findings suggest clinicians utilize the SCID-5-AMPD-I funnel structure to conduct efficient and individually tailored assessments informed by relevant patient characteristics. Adopting similar non-fixed administration procedures for other interviews could potentially provide similar benefits compared to traditional fixed-form administration procedures. The current study can serve as a template for verifying and evaluating future adoptions of non-fixed administration procedures in other interviews.

More is more: Evidence for the incremental value of the SCID-II/SCID-5-PD specific factors over and above a general personality disorder factor.

Currently, 3 competing conceptualizations of personality dysfunction can be distinguished: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) categorical model delineating 10 distinct types of personality disorders (PDs); the alternative model for PDs (DSM-5 Section III), which assesses personality functioning and traits separately; and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Version conceptualization, which provides 1 single code for the presence of a PD (which is based on problems in functioning) as well as codes that specify the level of the disorder (mild/moderate/severe), and prominent trait domains or patterns (5 domains and 1 pattern). The current study aims to assess the incremental value of the DSM-5 PDs over and above a global personality dysfunction factor, using expert ratings obtained with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV PDs and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 PDs interview in a large sample of clinical patients (N = 3,851). All estimated bifactor models provided adequate fit to the data. We found a surprisingly low explained common variance for the g-factor (<40%), indicating that ignoring the specific PD factors would lead to a substantial loss of information. The strongest specific PDs in terms of explained common variance were the avoidant, schizotypal, and schizoid PD factors and the conduct disorder criteria set if included. Correlations between our factors and external variables were relatively low, except for the Severity Indices of Personality Problems, which aims to measure personality functioning. Our findings suggest that specific PDs still have an important role to play in the assessment of personality pathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A Psychometric Analysis of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I): Level of Personality Functioning Scale.

The current study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I) assessing the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) in a heterogeneous sample of 282 nonpsychotic patients. Latent variable models were used to investigate the dimensionality of the LPFS. The results indicate that the LPFS, as assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD-I, can be considered as a unidimensional construct that can be measured reliably across a wide range of the latent trait. Threshold parameters for the 12 indicators of the LPFS increased gradually over the latent scale, indicating that the five LPFS levels were ordered as predicted by the model. In general, the increase of threshold parameters was relatively small for the shift from Level 2 to Level 3. A better distinction among the different severity levels might be obtained by fine-tuning the interview guidelines or the Level 2 indicators themselves.

Interrater Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module i: Level of Personality Functioning Scale.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) presents an alternative model for personality disorders in which severity of personality pathology is evaluated by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The Structured Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, Module I (SCID-5-AMPD I) is a new tool for LPFS assessment, but its interrater reliability (IRR) has not yet been tested. Here we examined the reliability of the Norwegian translation of the SCID-5-AMPD I, applying two different designs: IRR assessment based on ratings of 17 video-recorded SCID-5-AMPD I interviews by five raters; and test-retest IRR based on interviews of 33 patients administered by two different raters within a short interval. For the video-based investigation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged from .77 to .94 for subdomains, .89 to .95 for domains, and .96 for total LPFS. For the test-retest investigation, ICC ranged from .24 to .72 for subdomains, .59 to .90 for domains, and .75 for total LPFS. The test-retest study revealed questionable reliability estimates for some subdomains. However, overall the level of personality functioning was measured with a sufficient degree of IRR when assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD I.