CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 317Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyMental Health Research Topics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale‐Brief Form 2.0: Update of a brief instrument for assessing level of personality functioning

Open access
Weekers, Laura C., Hutsebaut, Joost, Kamphuis, Jan H.·2019·Personality and Mental Health
DOI 10.1002/pmh.1434
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) introduced the alternative model of personality disorders that includes assessing levels of personality functioning. Here, we describe the development, preliminary psychometric evaluation and sensitivity to change of a revised brief self‐report questionnaire, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale‐Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS‐BF 2.0). Patients ( N = 201) referred to a specialized centre for the assessment and treatment of personality disorders completed the LPFS‐BF 2.0, the Brief Symptom Inventory and the Severity Indices of Personality Problems Short Form and were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV Axis I and Axis II Disorders. Internal structure and aspects of construct validity were examined. A subsample of 39 patients also completed the questionnaires after 3 months of inpatient treatment. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated better fit for a two‐factor solution (interpretable as self‐functioning and interpersonal functioning) than for a unidimensional model, though acceptable model fit was evident only after two post hoc modifications. The LPFS‐BF 2.0 demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency and promising construct validity. Sensitivity to change after 3 months of treatment was high. The LPFS‐BF 2.0 constitutes a short, user‐friendly instrument that provides a quick impression of the severity of personality pathology. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pmh.1434

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 45 references

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Nugter MA, 2012, Achtergronden en gebruiksmogelijkheden van ROM in de ggz, Tijdschr Psychiatr, 54, 111
  2. Mulder CL, 2012, De invloed van de duur van behandeling op het interpreteren van ROM‐metingen bij ACT, Tijdschr Psychiatr, 54, 191
  3. Van Os J, 2012, ROM: gedragsnorm of dwangmaatregel?, Tijdschr Psychiatr, 54, 245
  4. Groenestijn MAC, 1999, Gestructureerd klinisch interview voor de vaststelling van DSM‐IV As‐I stoornissen
  5. Weertman A, 1996, Gestructureerd klinisch interview voor DSM‐IV as II persoonlijkheidsstoornissen [Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV Axis II Personality Disorders]
  6. De Beurs E, 2006, Leiden: PITS
  7. Muthén LK, 2010, Muthén BO. MPLUS user's guide

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Weekers, L. C., Hutsebaut, J., & Kamphuis, J. H.
Affiliations
De Viersprong (NL)
Corresponding author
Weekers, Laura C.
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Mental Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-09-19
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
3-14
ISSN
  • 1932-8621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-863X
DOI
10.1002/pmh.1434
OpenAlex
W2889899651
Cited by
317
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
12.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Personality and Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
personality functioning, personality disorders, Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, self-report questionnaire, psychometric validation, construct validity, sensitivity to change, self-functioning, interpersonal functioning, inpatient care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review