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.

The design of the MBT-G adherence and quality scale.

Few group psychotherapy studies focus on therapists' interventions, and instruments that can measure group psychotherapy treatment fidelity are scarce. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the reliability of the Mentalization-based Group Therapy Adherence and Quality Scale (MBT-G-AQS), which is a 19-item scale developed to measure adherence and quality in mentalization-based group therapy (MBT-G). Eight MBT groups and eight psychodynamic groups (a total of 16 videotaped therapy sessions) were rated independently by five raters. All groups were long-term, outpatient psychotherapy groups with 1.5 hours weekly sessions. Data were analysed by a Generalizability Study (G-study and D-study). The generalizability models included analyses of reliability for different numbers of raters. The global (overall) ratings for adherence and quality showed high to excellent reliability for all numbers of raters (the reliability by use of five raters was 0.97 for adherence and 0.96 for quality). The mean reliability for all 19 items for a single rater was 0.57 (item range 0.26-0.86) for adherence, and 0.62 (item range 0.26-0.83) for quality. The reliability for two raters obtained mean absolute G-coefficients on 0.71 (item range 0.41-0.92 for the different items) for adherence and 0.76 (item range 0.42-0.91) for quality. With all five raters the mean absolute G-coefficient for adherence was 0.86 (item range 0.63-0.97) and 0.88 for quality (item range 0.64-0.96). The study demonstrates high reliability of ratings of MBT-G-AQS. In models differentiating between different numbers of raters, reliability was particularly high when including several raters, but was also acceptable for two raters. For practical purposes, the MBT-G-AQS can be used for training, supervision and psychotherapy research.