Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:05:01.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems in developing an instrument for the rapid assessment of personality status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

E. Van Horn ,
C. Manley ,
D. Leddy ,
D. Cicchetti  and
P. Tyrer
E. Van Horn
Affiliation:
Department of Public Mental Health, Division of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, Paterson Centre, 20 South Whart Road, LondonW2 1PD, UK
C. Manley
Affiliation:
Department of Public Mental Health, Division of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, Paterson Centre, 20 South Whart Road, LondonW2 1PD, UK
D. Leddy
Affiliation:
Department of Public Mental Health, Division of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, Paterson Centre, 20 South Whart Road, LondonW2 1PD, UK
D. Cicchetti
Affiliation:
Yale Child Study Center, New Haven, USA
P. Tyrer*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Mental Health, Division of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, Paterson Centre, 20 South Whart Road, LondonW2 1PD, UK
*
* Correspondence and reprints
Get access

Summary

Purpose

To assess the validity of a quick assessment instrument (10 minutes) for assessing personality status, the Rapid Personality Assessment Schedule (PAS-R).

Subjects and methods

The PAS-R was evaluated in psychotic patients recruited in one of the centres involved in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of intensive vs standard case management (the UK700 case management trial). Patients were assessed using both a full version of the PAS (PAS-I – ICD version) and the PAS-R. The weighted kappa statistic was used to gauge the (criterion-related) validity of the PAS-R using the PAS-I as the gold standard. Both measure code personality status using a four-point rating of severity in addition to recording individual categories of personality disorder.

Results

One hundred fifty-five (77%) of 201 patients recruited were assessed with both instruments. The weighted kappa statistic was 0.31, suggesting only moderate agreement between the PAS-I and PAS-R instruments under the four-point rating format, and 0.39 for the dichotomous personality disorder/no disorder separation. The sensitivity (64%) and specificity (82%) of the PAS-R in predicting PAS-I personality disorder were as satisfactory as for other screening instruments but still somewhat disappointing, and the PAS-R had an overall diagnostic accuracy of 78%.

Conclusion

The PAS-R is a quick and rough method of detecting personality abnormality but is not a substitute for a fuller assessment.

Keywords

assessmentpersonality disorderreliabilityvalidity
Type
Original Article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 15 , Issue S1 , June 2000 , pp. 29 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved

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

Brothwell, J, Casey, P.R, Tyrer, PWho gives the most reliable account of a psychiatric patient’s personality Ir J Psychol M 6 1992 90–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D.V, Showalter, D, Rourke, B.P, Fuerst, DA computer program for analyzing ordinal trends with dichotomous outcomes: applications to neuropsychological research Clin Neuropsychologist 73 1992 458–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J, Cowen, P.J, Mann, A.H, Jenkins, RPersonality and psychosis: use of the Standardised Assessment of Personality Acta Psychiat Scand 140 1986 87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Girolamo, G, Reich, J.HPersonality disorders 1993 World Health Organisation GenevaGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, H.J, Eysenck, S.B.GManual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory 1964 University of London Press LondonGoogle Scholar
Fleiss, J.LStatistical methods for rates and proportions 2nd 1981 John Wiley and Sons New YorkGoogle Scholar
Hirschfeld, R.M.A, Klerman, G.L, Clayton, P.J, Keller, M.B, McDonald-Scott, P, Larkin, B.HAssessing personality: effects of the depressive state on trait measurement Am J Psychiatry 147 1983 695–699Google Scholar
Hyler, S, Skodol, A, Andrew, E, Kellman, H, Oldham, JValidity of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire – Revised: comparison with two structured interviews Am J Psychiatry 114 1990 1043–1048Google Scholar
Kendell, R.E, Discipio, W.JEysenck personality inventory scores of patients with depressive illnesses Br J Psychiatry 13 1968 767–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langbehn, D.R, Pfohl, B.M, Reynolds, S, Clark, L.A, Battaglia, M, Bellodi, L et al. The Iowa personality disorder screen: development and preliminary validation of a brief screening interview J Pers Dis 51 1999 75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, CIntroduction to statistics: a non-parametric approach for the social sciences 1979 John Wiley and Sons New YorkGoogle Scholar
Loranger, A.W, Sartorius, N, Andreoli, A, Berner, W, Buchheim, P, Channabasavanna, S.M et al. The International Personality Disorder Examination: the WHO/ADAMHA international pilot study of personality disorders Arch Gen Psychiatry 48 1994 215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuffin, P, Farmer, A.E, Harvey, IA polydiagnostic application of operational criteria in studies of psychotic illness: development and reliability of the OPCRIT system Arch Gen Psychiatry 11 1991 764–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, A.H, Jenkins, R, Cutting, J.C, Cowen, P.JThe development and use of a standardized assessment of abnormal personality Psychol M 29 1981 839–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, A.H, Raven, P, Pilgrim, J, Khanna, S et al. An assessment of the Standardized Assessment of Personality as a screening instrument for the International Personality Disorder Examination: a comparison of informant and patient assessments for personality disorder Psychol M 8 1999 985–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merson, S, Tyrer, P, Duke, P, Henderson, FInter-rater reliability of ICD-10 guidelines for the diagnosis of personality disorders J Pers Dis 135 1994 89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrer, PPersonality Assessment Schedule – PAS-I (ICD-10 version)Tyrer, PPersonality disorders: diagnosis, management and course 2nd 2000 Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford160–180Google Scholar
Tyrer, P, Alexander, JClassification of personality disorder Br J Psychiatry 135 1979 163–167CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P, Alexander, M.S, Cicchetti, D et al. Reliability of a schedule for rating personality disorders Br J Psychiatry 13 1979 168–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrer, P, Strauss, J, Cicchetti, DTemporal reliability of personality in psychiatric patients Psychol M 153 1983 393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrer, P, Johnson, TEstablishing the severity of personality disorder Am J Psychiatry 174 1996 1593–1597Google Scholar
UK700 Group Creed, F, Burns, T, Butler, T, Byford, S, Murray, R, Thompson, S et al. Comparison of intensive and standard case management for patients with psychosis: rationale of the trial Br J Psychiatry 353 1999 74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK700 Group Burns, T, Creed, F, Fahy, T, Thompson, S, Tyrer, P, White, IIntensive versus standard case management for severe psychotic illness: a randomised trial Lancet 1999 2185–2189CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.