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).

Norwegian Clinicians' Experiences of Learnability and Usability of SCID-II, SCID-5-PD and SCID-5-AMPD-I Interviews: A Sequential Multi-Group Qualitative Approach.

The DSM-5 presents two competing diagnostic frameworks for personality disorders: the standard categorical model and the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). The AMPD was initially criticized for being too complex and theory laden for clinical implementation. Though inter-rater reliability studies have contested initial claims of the model's complexity, little attention has been paid to how clinicians experience the usability and learnability of either model. We interviewed twenty Norwegian clinicians about their experiences with either the SCID-II/5-PD (n = 9), SCID-5-AMPD-I (n = 8), or both (n = 3). Separate thematic analyses were conducted for SCID-II/5-PD and SCID-5-AMPD-I groups, and group themes were compared. We identified four themes for each group, relating to required skills, training, challenges and information gained through the interview. We found that training and clinical experience were considered to be important for both interviews. Moreover, the SCID-5-AMPD-I was considered to rely more explicitly on theory specific to the development and content of the AMPD model in general and the LPFS specifically We also identified shared and unique challenges and shortcomings of each interview. We comment on how our findings relate to the debate surrounding the AMPD, and recommend development of clear training guidelines for both interviews.