CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Examining the inventory of interpersonal problems as a tool for conducting analogue studies of mechanisms underlying Borderline Personality Disorder

Lejuez, C.W, Daughters, Stacey B, Nowak, Jennifer A, Lynch, Thomas, Rosenthal, M.Zachary, Kosson, David·2003·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/j.jbtep.2003.11.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite recent advancements in the treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), little is known about the underlying mechanisms in the development and maintenance of the disorder. To examine these issues, it is first necessary to identify a brief screening measure that can be used to assess factors underlying BPD. Considering this need, the current investigation examined the utility of a BPD-related composite consisting of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Interpersonal Sensitivity (IIP-IS) and Aggression (IIP-Ag) subscales of the IIP in a sample of college students ( [Formula: see text] ) and a sample of individuals seeking residential drug use treatment ( [Formula: see text] ). Data indicated that score on this composite measure (IIP-BPD) was positively related to scores on measures tapping BPD-related symptomotology, as well or better than the IIP total score in all cases. These data suggest the specificity of the IIP-BPD and support its use in analogue studies to better understand the mechanisms underlying the disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2003.11.002

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lejuez, C. W., Daughters, S. B., Nowak, J. A., Lynch, T., Rosenthal, M. Z., & Kosson, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Lejuez, C.W
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-09
Volume
34
Issue
3-4
Pages
313-324
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jbtep.2003.11.002
OpenAlex
W1986384534
Cited by
37
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
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 › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
borderline personality disorder, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, interpersonal sensitivity, aggression, screening measures, composite measures, analog studies, maintenance mechanisms, university students, drug use treatment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Behavior, Borderline Personality Disorder, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results

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