Dataset Information

A proposed severity classification of borderline symptoms using the borderline symptom list (BSL-23).

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23) is a well-established self-rating instrument to assess the severity of borderline typical psychopathology. However, a classification of severity levels for the BSL-23 is missing.

Methods

Data from 1.090 adults were used to develop a severity classification for the Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23). The severity grading was based on the distribution of the BSL-23 in 241 individuals with a diagnosis of BPD. Data from three independent samples were used to validate the previously defined severity grades.These validation samples included a group of treatment seeking patients with a diagnosis of BPD (n = 317), a sample of individuals with mental illnesses other than BPD (n = 176), and a healthy control sample (n = 356). The severity grades were validated from comparisons with established assessment instruments such as the International Personality Disorders Examination, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, the global severity index of the Symptom Checklist (GSI, SCL-90), the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II).

Results

Six grades of symptom severity were defined for the BSL-23 mean score: none or low: 0-0.3; mild: 0.3-0.7; moderate: 0.7-1.7; high: 1.7-2.7; very high: 2.7-3.5; and extremely high: 3.5-4. These grades received consistent empirical support from the independent instruments and samples. For instance, individuals with a severity grade of none or low were virtually free from diagnostic BPD-criteria, had a GSI below the normative population, and a high level of global functioning corresponding to few or no symptoms. Severity grades indicating high to extremely high levels of BPD symptoms were observed at a much higher rate in treatment-seeking patients (70.0%) than in clinical controls (17.6%) and healthy controls (0.0%). The BSL-23 score that best separated treatment-seeking BPD patients and clinical controls was 1.50, whereas the clearest discrimination of BPD patients and healthy controls was found at a score of 0.64.

Conclusions

The grades of BPD-specific symptom severity derived from the distribution of the BSL-23 scores received consistent empirical validation from established assessments for psychopathology. Future studies should expand this validation by including additional instruments e.g., to assess self-esteem, loneliness, connectedness, and quality of life.

SUBMITTER: Kleindienst N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7262769 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The brief version of the Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23) is a self-rated scale developed from the initial 95-item version of Borderline Symptom List (BSL-95). The current study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the BSL-23. A total of 570 undergraduate students and 323 clinical patients completed the BSL-23, the borderline subscale of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ-4+), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, 11th version (BIS-11), the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the one-factor structure of the BSL-23. Cronbach's alpha, Omega coefficient, Split-Half coefficient, Mean Inter-Item Correlation (MIC) and test-retest reliability were also measured. The correlations between the BSL-23 and other psychological variables were used to assess criterion-related validity and convergent validity. Participants who scored ? 5 on the borderline subscale of the PDQ-4+ were placed into the borderline personality disorder (BPD) screening-positive group, while the others were placed into the screening-negative group. Independent sample t-tests were performed to examine the differences in BSL-23 scores between the BPD screening-positive group and the BPD screening-negative group. The CFA results supported the one-factor structure of the BSL-23 in both samples. The internal consistency was high both in the undergraduate sample (Cronbach's ? = 0.93, Omega = 0.95, Split-Half coefficient = 0.89, MIC = 0.38) and the clinical sample (Cronbach's ? = 0.97, Omega = 0.97, Split-Half coefficient = 0.96, MIC = 0.56). The test-retest reliability within 2 weeks was 0.62. The BSL-23 displayed moderate to high correlations with the PDQ-4+-Borderline subscale, the CES-D, the BIS-11, the CTQ and the ASQ (r = 0.35 - 0.70). In addition, the BSL-23 discriminated between the BPD screening-positive and the BPD screening-negative participants, and also between the patient sample and undergraduate sample. In conclusion, the Chinese version of the BSL-23 has satisfactory psychometric properties to assess BPD symptoms.

Project description:Background: The 11th version of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) has adopted a dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) nosology. Notably, it includes an assessment of PD degree of severity, which can be classified according to five categories. To date, there is no gold standard measure for assessing degree of PD severity based on the ICD-11 model, and there are no empirically-based anchor points to delineate the proposed categories. With the operationalization of PD degrees of severity in the ICD-11 PD model now being closely aligned with Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), sharing a focus on self and interpersonal dysfunction, self-report instruments developed for the latter model might prove useful as screening tools to determine degrees of severity in the former. Methods: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale, a brief validated self-report questionnaire originally designed to assess level of personality pathology according to the AMPD framework, was used to derive anchor points to delineate the five severity degrees from the ICD-11 PD model. Data from five clinical and non-clinical samples (total N = 2,240) allowed identifying anchor points for classification, based on Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis, Latent Class Analysis, and data distribution statistics. Categories were validated using multiple indices pertaining to externalizing and internalizing symptoms relevant to PD. Results: Analyses yielded the following anchor points for PD degrees of severity: No PD = 0-1.04; Personality Difficulty = 1.05-1.29; Mild PD = 1.30-1.89; Moderate PD = 1.90-2.49; and Severe PD = 2.50 and above. A clear gradient of severity across the five categories was observed in all samples. A high number of significant contrasts among PD categories were also observed on external variables, consistent with the ICD-11 PD degree of severity operationalization. Conclusions: The present study provides potentially useful guidelines to determine severity of personality pathology based on the ICD-11 model. The use of a brief self-report questionnaire as a screening tool for assessing PD degrees of severity should be seen as a time-efficient support for clinical decision and treatment planning.

Project description:Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) affects 1 in 88 children and is characterized by a complex phenotype, including social, communicative, and sensorimotor deficits. Autism spectrum disorder has been linked with atypical connectivity across multiple brain systems, yet the nature of these differences in young children with the disorder is not well understood.To examine connectivity of large-scale brain networks and determine whether specific networks can distinguish children with ASD from typically developing (TD) children and predict symptom severity in children with ASD.Case-control study performed at Stanford University School of Medicine of 20 children 7 to 12 years old with ASD and 20 age-, sex-, and IQ-matched TD children.Between-group differences in intrinsic functional connectivity of large-scale brain networks, performance of a classifier built to discriminate children with ASD from TD children based on specific brain networks, and correlations between brain networks and core symptoms of ASD.We observed stronger functional connectivity within several large-scale brain networks in children with ASD compared with TD children. This hyperconnectivity in ASD encompassed salience, default mode, frontotemporal, motor, and visual networks. This hyperconnectivity result was replicated in an independent cohort obtained from publicly available databases. Using maps of each individual's salience network, children with ASD could be discriminated from TD children with a classification accuracy of 78%, with 75% sensitivity and 80% specificity. The salience network showed the highest classification accuracy among all networks examined, and the blood oxygen-level dependent signal in this network predicted restricted and repetitive behavior scores. The classifier discriminated ASD from TD in the independent sample with 83% accuracy, 67% sensitivity, and 100% specificity.Salience network hyperconnectivity may be a distinguishing feature in children with ASD. Quantification of brain network connectivity is a step toward developing biomarkers for objectively identifying children with ASD.

Project description:AimsBother attributed to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) drives care-seeking and treatment aggressiveness. The longitudinal relationship of LUTS severity and bother in a care-seeking cohort, however, is not well understood. We aim to conduct a longitudinal evaluation of LUTS severity and bother and identify characteristics of patients with discordant LUTS bother relative to severity.MethodsMen and women with LUTS seeking care at six US tertiary care centers enrolled in the symptoms of lower urinary tract dysfunction research network study. Patients reporting at least one urinary symptom based on the LUTS Tool were prospectively enrolled from June 2015 to January 2017. Correlations were used to assess the relationship between LUTS severity and bother. Discordance scores (ie, the difference between bother and severity) were used to classify patients with high and low bother. Patients were classified as having high or low bother phenotypes if scores were one standard deviation above or below zero, respectively. Repeated measures multinomial logistic regression evaluated characteristics associated with high and low bother phenotypes.ResultsLUTS severity and bother were at least moderately correlated for all symptom items and highly correlated for 13 out of 21 items. Correlations were highest for urgency, and lowest for daytime frequency and urinary incontinence. Odds of being in high bother phenotype were lowest at 3 and 12 months (3 months vs baseline odds ratio [OR] = 0.71, 95% confidence ninterval [CI] = 0.54-0.94; 12 months vs baseline OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.48-0.91), and highest for those who endorsed all urgency questions (OR = 3.65, 95% CI = 2.17-6.13). Odds of being in the low bother phenotype were lowest for patients who endorsed all urgency items (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.26-0.42), and all frequency items (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.53-0.88).ConclusionsLUTS severity and bother correlate highly and measurement of both in clinical practice is likely redundant. There are patient factors associated with discordance which may justify additional evaluation.