CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 180Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health Research TopicsReliability and Agreement in Measurement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inter-Rater and Test-Retest Reliability of the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines

Zanarini, Mary C., Frankenburg, Frances R., Vujanovic, A. Anna·2002·Journal of Personality Disorders
DOI 10.1521/pedi.16.3.270.22538
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The baseline inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, follow-up inter-rater reliability, and follow-up longitudinal reliability (interrater reliability between generations of raters) of borderline symptoms and the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) were assessed using the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R). Excellent kappa s (> .75) were found in each of these reliability substudies for the diagnosis of BPD itself. Excellent kappa s were also found in each of the three inter-rater reliability substudies for the vast majority of borderline symptoms assessed by the DIB-R. Test-retest reliability for these symptoms was somewhat lower but still very good. More specifically, one-third of the BPD symptoms assessed had a kappa in the excellent range and the remaining two-thirds had a kappa in the fair-good range (.57-.73). The dimensional reliability of BPD symptom areas was somewhat higher than for categorical measures of the subsyndromal phenomenology of BPD. More specifically, all five dimensional measures of borderline psychopathology had intraclass correlation coefficients in the excellent range for all four reliability substudies. Taken together, the results of this study suggest that both the borderline diagnosis and the symptoms of BPD can be diagnosed reliably when using the DIB-R. They also suggest that excellent reliability, once achieved, can be maintained over time for both the syndromal and subsyndromal phenomenology of BPD.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/pedi.16.3.270.22538

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 180

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., & Vujanovic, A. A.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality Disorders
Publisher
Guilford Publications
Published
2002-06
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
270-276
ISSN
0885-579X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1521/pedi.16.3.270.22538
OpenAlex
W2109696135
Cited by
180
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 16
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH-62169, R29MH047588, R01MH062169, MH-47588)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
borderline personality disorder, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, borderline symptoms, diagnostic interview, dimensional assessment, kappa statistic, intraclass correlation coefficient
MeSH terms
Borderline Personality Disorder, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation

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