Reliability and validity of the German version of the Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO)

BMC Psychiatry

Gudrun Schneider¹  Susanne Hörz⁶  Marcus Feldmann²  Margit Lübking⁵  Brigitta Bäumer⁴  Dina Menke⁷  Gereon Heuft¹  Markus Burgmer¹  Stephan Doering³ 

[1] Department of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University of Münster, Münster, Germany;St. Vinzenz Hospital, Rhede, Germany;Department of Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090 Wien, Austria;Private practice, Senden, Germany;Alexianer Krankenhaus, Münster, Germany;Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany;Private practice, Münster, Germany

关键词: Validity;    Reliability;    Diagnosis;    Personality disorder;    Personality functioning;   

Others  :  1123983
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-244X-13-210

 received in 2013-02-06, accepted in 2013-08-05,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The assessment of personality organization and its observable behavioral manifestations, i.e. personality functioning, has a long tradition in psychodynamic psychiatry. Recently, the DSM-5 Levels of Personality Functioning Scale has moved it into the focus of psychiatric diagnostics. Based on Kernberg’s concept of personality organization the Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO) was developed for diagnosing personality functioning. The STIPO covers seven dimensions: (1) identity, (2) object relations, (3) primitive defenses, (4) coping/rigidity, (5) aggression, (6) moral values, and (7) reality testing and perceptual distortions. The English version of the STIPO has previously revealed satisfying psychometric properties.

Methods

Validity and reliability of the German version of the 100-item instrument have been evaluated in 122 psychiatric patients. All patients were diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and were assessed by means of the STIPO. Moreover, all patients completed eight questionnaires that served as criteria for external validity of the STIPO.

Results

Interrater reliability varied between intraclass correlations of .89 and 1.0, Crohnbach’s α for the seven dimensions was .69 to .93. All a priori selected questionnaire scales correlated significantly with the corresponding STIPO dimensions. Patients with personality disorder (PD) revealed significantly higher STIPO scores (i.e. worse personality functioning) than patients without PD; patients cluster B PD showed significantly higher STIPO scores than patients with cluster C PD.

Conclusions

Interrater reliability, Crohnbach’s α, concurrent validity, and differential validity of the STIPO are satisfying. The STIPO represents an appropriate instrument for the assessment of personality functioning in clinical and research settings.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Doering et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Freud S: Die Traumdeutung. Gesammelte Werke Bd. II/III. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuchverlag; 1900/1999.
• [2]Freud A: Das Ich und die Abwehrmechanismen. Wien: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag; 1936.
• [3]Hartmann H: Ich-Psychologie und Anpassungsproblem. Int Z Psychoanal Imago 1939, 24:62-135.
• [4]Hartmann H: Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation. New York: International Universities Press; 1958.
• [5]Kernberg OF: Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson; 1975.
• [6]Kernberg OF: Severe personality disorders. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1984.
• [7]Clarkin JF, Yeomans FE, Kernberg OF: Psychotherapy for Borderline Personality Disorder. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2006.
• [8]Bowlby J: Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. London: Hogarth Press; 1969.
• [9]Fonagy P: Thinking about thinking: some clinical and theoretical considerations in the treatment of a borderline patient. Int J Psychoanal 1991, 72:639-656.
• [10]Fonagy P: Playing with reality: The development of psychic reality and its malfunction in borderline personalities. Int J Psychoanal 1995, 76:39-44.
• [11]Fonagy P, Target M, Steele H, Steele M: Reflecting Functioning Manual, Version 5, for Application to Adult Attachment Interviews. London: Unpublished manuscript; 1998.
• [12]Fischer-Kern M, Buchheim A, Hörz S, Schuster P, Doering S, Kapusta ND, Taubner S, Tmej A, Rentrop M, Buchheim P, Fonagy P: The Relationship between Personality Organization, Reflective Functioning and Psychiatric Classification in Borderline Personality Disorder. Psychoanal Psychol 2010, 27:395-409.
• [13]Wallerstein RS, DeWitt K, Hartley D, Rosenberg SE, Zilberg N: The Scales of Psychological Capacities. Version 1. Unpublished manual. San Francisco: University of California; 1989.
• [14]OPD Task Force: Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis – OPD-2. Manual of Diagnosis and Treatment Planning. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers; 2008.
• [15]Bender DS, Morey LC, Skodol AE: Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part I: a review of theory and methods. J Personal Assess 2011, 93:332-346.
• [16]American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Fifth edition. DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
• [17]Tyrer P, Crawford M, Mulder R: Reclassifying personality disorders. Lancet 2011, 377:1814-1815.
• [18]Kernberg OF: The structural interviewing. Psychiatr North Am 1981, 4:169-195.
• [19]Clarkin JF, Foelsch PA, Kernberg OF: The Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO). New York: Weill Medical College of Cornell University; 1995.
• [20]Lenzenweger MF, Clarkin JF, Kernberg OF, Foelsch PA: The Inventory of Personality Organization: psychometric properties, factorial composition, and criterion relations with affect, aggressive dyscontrol, psychosis proneness, and self-domains in a nonclinical sample. Psychol Assess 2001, 13:577-591.
• [21]Clarkin JF, Caligor E, Stern B, Kernberg OF: Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO). New York: Weill Medical College of Cornell University; 2003.
• [22]Stern BL, Caligor E, Clarkin JF, Critchfield KL, Horz S, MacCornack V, Lenzenweger MF, Kernberg OF: Structured interview of personality organization (STIPO): Preliminary psychometrics in a clinical sample. J Personal Assess 2010, 92:35-44.
• [23]Clark LA: Schedule of Nonadaptive an Adaptive Personality, SNAP. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1993.
• [24]Hörz S: A Prototype of Borderline Personality Organization – Assessed by the Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac; 2007.
• [25]Doering S, Hörz S, Rentrop M, Fischer-Kern M, Schuster P, Benecke C, Buchheim A, Martius P, Buchheim P: Transference-focused psychotherapy v. treatment by community psychotherapists for borderline personality disorder: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2010, 196:389-395.
• [26]Hörz S, Rentrop M, Fischer-Kern M, Schuster P, Kapusta N, Buchheim P, Doering S: Strukturniveau und klinischer Schweregrad der Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung. Z Psychosom Med Psychother 2010, 56:136-149.
• [27]American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fourth Edition. DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 1994.
• [28]Fydrich T, Renneberg B, Schmitz B, Wittchen HU: SKID-II: Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV, Achse II: Persönlichkeitsstörungen. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1997.
• [29]Wittchen HU, Zaudig M, Fydrich T: SKID-I: Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV, Achse I. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1997.
• [30]Skre I, Onstad S, Torgersen S, Kringlen E: High interrater reliability for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Axis I (SCID-I). Acta Psychiatr Scand 1991, 84(2):167-173.
• [31]Maffei C, Fossati A, Agostoni I, Barraco A, Bagnato M, Deborah D, Mania C, Novella L, Petrachi M: Interrater reliability and internal consistency of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV axis II personality disorders (SCID-II), version 2.0. J Personal Disord 1997, 11(3):279-284.
• [32]World Health Organization: The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.
• [33]Benecke C, Koschier A, Peham D, Bock A, Dahlbender RW, Biebl W, Doering S: Erste Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Validität der OPD-2 Strukturachse. Z Psychosom med Psychother 2009, 55:84-96.
• [34]Cierpka M, Grande T, Stasch M, Oberbracht C, Schneider W, Schüssler G, Heuft G, Dahlbender R, Schauenburg H, Schneider G: Zur Validität der Operationalisierten Psychodynamischen Diagnostik (OPD). Psychotherapeut 2001, 46:122-133.
• [35]Leichsenring F: Borderline Persönlichkeits-Inventar (BPI). Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1997.
• [36]Leichsenring F: Development and First Results of the Borderline Personality Inventory: A Self-Report Instrument for Assessing Borderline Personality Organization. J Personal Assess 1999, 73:45-63.
• [37]Janke W, Erdmann G: Streßverarbeitungsfragebogen (SVF-120). Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag; 1997.
• [38]Spielberger CD: State-Trait-Anger-Expression-Inventory (STAXI). Research edition. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1988.
• [39]Schwenkmerger P, Hodapp V, Spielberger CD: Das State-Trait-Ärgerausdrucks-Inventar – STAXI. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber; 1992.
• [40]Freyberger HJ, Spitzer C, Stieglitz RD: Fragebogen zu Dissoziativen Symptomen. 2nd edition. Bern: Hans Huber Verlag; 2005.
• [41]Bernstein EM, Putnam FW: Development, reliability, and validity of a dissociation scale. J Nerv Ment Dis 1986, 174:727-735.
• [42]Hentschel U, Kießling M, Wiemers M: Fragebogen zu Konfliktbewältigungsstrategien – FKBS. Göttingen: Beltz; 1998.
• [43]Gleser GC, Ihilevich D: An objective instrument for measuring defense mechanisms. J Consult Clin Psychol 1969, 1969(33):51-60.
• [44]Deusinger IM: Die Frankfurter Selbstkonzeptskalen (FSKN). Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1986.
• [45]Brennan KA, Clark CL, Shaver PR: Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Attachment theory and close relationships. Edited by Simpson JA, Rholes WS. New York, NY: Guilford; 1998:46-76.
• [46]Neumann E, Rohmann E, Bierhoff HW: Entwicklung und Validierung von Skalen zur Erfassung von Vermeidung und Angst in Partnerschaften – Der Bochumer Bindungsfragebogen (BoBi). Diagnostica 2007, 53:33-47.
• [47]Schotte CKW, De Doncker D, Vankerckhoven C, Vertommen H, Cosyns P: Self-report assessment of the DSM-IV personality disorders. Measurement of trait and distress characteristics: the ADP-IV. Psychol Med 1998, 28:1179-1188.
• [48]Doering S, Renn D, Höfer S, Smrekar U, Janecke N, Schatz DS, Schatz DS, Schotte C, DeDoncker D, Schüssler G: Validierung der deutschen Version des Fragebogens zur Erfassung von DSM-IV Persönlichkeitsstörungen (ADP-IV). Z Psychosom Med Psychother 2007, 53:111-128.
• [49]Renn D, Höfer S, Schüßler G, Rumpold G, Smrekar U, Janecke N, Doering S: Dimensionale Diagnostik mit dem Fragebogen zur Erfassung von DSM-IV Persönlichkeitsstörungen (ADP-IV). Z Psychosom Med Psychother 2008, 54:214-226.
• [50]Huber D, Klug G, Henrich G, Marten-Mittag B, Wallerstein RS: Die Skalen Psychischer Kompetenzen (SPK). In Handbuch der Strukturdiagnostik. Konzepte, Instrumente, Praxis. Edited by Doering S, Hörz S. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2012:122-151.
• [51]Zimmermann J, Ehrenthal JC, Cierpka M, Schauenburg H, Doering S, Benecke C: Assessing the Level of Structural Integration using Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD): Implications for DSM-5. J Personal Assess 2012, 94:522-532.