Academic literature on the topic 'STiP-5.1'

Zusammenfassung Theoretischer Hintergrund Das alternative Modell für Persönlichkeitsstörungen des DSM-5 führt erstmals ein evidenzbasiertes, dimensionales Konzept für die Diagnostik von Störungen der Persönlichkeit ein. Kriterium A, operationalisiert mit der Level of Personality Functioning Scale, differenziert das Ausmaß von Beeinträchtigungen im Funktionsniveau der Persönlichkeit. Mit dem Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) liegt bereits ein valides, reliables und ökonomisches Interview zur Erfassung von Kriterium A vor. Bisher existiert jedoch keine validierte Form des Interviews in deutscher Sprache. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist die psychometrische Evaluation der deutschsprachigen Version des STiP-5.1. Methodik Die Validität und Reliabilität des STiP-5.1 wurde in einer Stichprobe von gesunden Erwachsenen (n=55) und stationär behandelten Patienten mit der Diagnose einer psychischen Störung (n=55) untersucht. Die Konstruktvalidität wurde über Korrelationen mit Fragebögen zu strukturellen Beeinträchtigungen (IPO-16, OPD-SFK) und maladaptiven Persönlichkeitseigenschaften (SKID-II-PF) überprüft. Die Interrater-Reliabilität wurde in einer Teilstichprobe von Gesunden und Patienten (n=50) untersucht. Ergebnisse Bezüglich der Validität wurden hohe Korrelationen (r=0,68–0,78) zwischen STiP-5.1-Ratings und konvergenten Selbstberichtfragebögen festgestellt. In der Teilstichprobe zeigte sich eine sehr gute Interrater-Reliabilität (ICC=0,93). Die Dauer der Interviews betrug durchschnittlich 38 Min. Schlussfolgerungen Mit der deutschen Version des STiP-5.1 liegt ein valides, reliables und ökonomisches Interviewverfahren zur dimensionalen Erfassung von Beeinträchtigungen im Funktionsniveau der Persönlichkeit für Forschung und klinische Praxis vor.

In forensic settings, several challenges may affect reliability of assessment of personality pathology, specifically when based upon self-report. This study investigates the Semi-Structured Interview for DSM-5 Personality Functioning (STiP-5.1) to assess level of severity of personality functioning in incarcerated patients. Thirty inpatients of three forensic psychiatric facilities completed the STiP 5.1 and additionally completed self-report questionnaires assessing symptom severity, personality functioning and traits. Staff members completed informant versions of personality functioning questionnaires. Previously assessed community (N = 18) and clinical samples (N = 80) were used as a reference. Interrater reliability and internal consistency of the STiP 5.1 were good. As expected, no associations were found between self-report and expert-ratings (STiP 5.1) of personality functioning. Remarkably, no associations were found between informant rated personality functioning and the STiP 5.1. This study confirms the discrepancies between self-report and expert-ratings in forensic settings and identifies the need to design and test assessment instruments within this context instead of generalizing findings obtained in regular mental health care samples. The STiP-5.1 may be a candidate for use in forensic samples, particularly to guide treatment planning and individual patient policy, although it remains unclear what specific information it offers above and beyond self-report and informant-report.

This thesis deals with diagnostic methods for personality disorders - a questionnaire LPFS-BF 2.0 and a semi-structured interview STiP-5.1. Both methods assess the level of personality functioning from The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. The main aim of that study is to compare a self-report method and a method based on clinical assessment on a sample of N = 30 non-psychiatric group and N = 30 clinical group. Diagnostic criteria for personality disorders in accordance with valid classification systems are presented in the theoretical part of the study, with an emphasis on benefits and limitations of the DSM-5 alternative model. Categorial and dimensional diagnostic approaches were compared and critically evaluated. Existing diagnostic methods for personality disorders were then discussed, structured interviews and questionnaires were analyzed more in detail. Specifics in use of self- report methods and structured interviews for assessing personality disorders were also discussed. In the empirical part a quantitative analysis was held to discover whether both methods mentioned above assess the same level of personality functioning, and also whether both methods differentiate between the control and clinical groups. The results have shown significant correlations between scores of...