Download PDF
Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2011; 61(11): 481-486
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291275
Kurzmitteilung
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Diagnostische Effizienz des McLean Screening Instrument für Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung in einer Stichprobe, die eine stationäre, störungsspezifische Behandlung in Anspruch nehmen möchte

Diagnostic Accuracy of the McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder in an Inpatient Sample who Seek a Disorder-Specific Treatment
Christoph Kröger
1   Abteilung für Klinische Psychologie, Psychotherapie und Diagnostik, Technische Universität Braunschweig
,
Friederike Huget
1   Abteilung für Klinische Psychologie, Psychotherapie und Diagnostik, Technische Universität Braunschweig
,
Stefan Roepke
2   Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingereicht 31 May 2011

akzeptiert 16 September 2011

Publication Date:
11 November 2011 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung (BPS) gilt als die häufigste Persönlichkeitsstörung im stationären Bereich. Um Betroffene reliabel, valide und ökonomisch zu identifizieren, wurde das McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD) entwickelt. Welche diskriminative Fähigkeit sowie diagnostische Effizienz weist die deutsche Version des MSI-BPD in einer Stichprobe auf, bei der ein Verdacht auf BPS besteht und die ein störungsspezifisches Behandlungsangebot in Anspruch nehmen möchte? Basierend auf einer Stichprobe (N=298) mit 178 Patienten mit BPS (60%) betrug die Fläche unter der Kurve AUC=0,70 (CI 95%: 0,64<AUC<0,76). Unter Verwendung des favorisierten Grenzwertes von>7 wurden 84% der BPS Patienten richtig als solche erkannt (Sensitivität) und 39% der Patienten ohne BPS korrekt klassifiziert (Spezifität). Die Ergebnisse deuten daraufhin, dass ein Selbstbeurteilungsinstrument wie das MSI-BPD bei einer Stichprobe mit bestehendem Verdacht auf BPS nicht eingesetzt werden sollte.

Abstract

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is considered as the most prevalent personality disorder in an inpatient setting. The McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD) was developed to identify individuals with BPD reliably, valid and economically. To examine the discriminatory ability and diagnostic efficiency of the German version of the MSI-BPD in a sample with patients who meet probable BPD and seek a disorder-related inpatient treatment program. Based on a sample (N=298) containing 178 BPD-patients (60%), the area under the curve was AUC=0.70 (CI 95%: 0.64<AUC<0.76). Using the preferred cut-off point of>7. 84% of individuals with BPD (sensitivity) and 39% of individuals without BPD were identified correctly (specificity). Results suggest that a self-rated screening measure as the MSI-BPD should not be used in a sample with patients who meet probable BPD.

Schlüsselwörter

Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung - Screening-Instrument - Sensitivität - Spezifität

Keywords

borderline personality disorder - screening measure - sensitivity - specificity
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Black DW, Blum N, Pfohl B et al. Suicidal behavior in borderline personality disorder: Prevalence, risk factors, prediction, and prevention. J Pers Disord 2004; 18: 226-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Herpertz SC, Steinmeyer EM, Saß H. “Patterns of comorbidity” among DSM-III-R and ICD-10 personality disorders as observed with a new inventory for the assessment of personality disorders. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 1994; 244: 161-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Loranger AW, Sartorius N, Andreoli A et al. The International Personality Disorder Examination. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994; 51: 215-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Van Asselt ADI, Dirksen CD, Arntz A et al. The cost of borderline personality disorder: Societal cost of illness in BPS-patients. Eur Psychiatry 2007; 22: 354-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Soeteman DI, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Verheul R et al. The economic burden of personality disorders in mental health care. J Clin Psychol 2008; 69: 259-265
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Skodol AE, Gunderson JG, Pfohl B et al. The Borderline diagnosis I: psychopathology, comorbidity, and personality structure. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 51: 936-950
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Widiger TA, Samuel DB. Evidence based assessment of personality disorders. Psychol Assess 2005; 17: 278-287
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Siefert CJ. Screening for personality disorders in psychiatric settings. Four recently developed screening measures. In: Baer L, Blais MA. (eds.). Handbook of clinical rating scales and assessment in psychiatry and mental health. Current Clinical Psychiatry. New York: Humana Press; 2010: 125-144
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fydrich T, Renneberg B, Schmitz B et al. Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV, Achse II (SKID-II). Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1997
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zanarini MC, Vujanovic AA, Parachini EA et al. A screening measures for BPS: The McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPS). J Pers Disord 2003; 17: 568-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kröger C, Vonau M, Kliem S et al. Screening-Instrument für die Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung. Diagnostische Effizienz der deutschen Version des McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder. Psychother, Psychosom, Med Psychol 2010; 60: 391-396
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Melartin T, Häkkinen M, Koivisto M et al. Screening of psychiatric outpatients for borderline personality disorder with the McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD). Nord J Psychiatry 2009; 63: 475-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shrout PE. Identification of psychiatric cases in primary health care settings: The utility of two phase screening designs. In: Cooper B, Eastwood MR. (eds.). Primary health care and psychiatric epidemiology. New York: Routledge; 1992: 293-306
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Guggenmoos-Holzmann I, van Houwelingen HC. The (in)validity of sensitivity and specificity. Stat Med 2000; 19: 1783-1792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Dubo ED et al. Axis II comorbidity of borderline personality disorder. Compr Psychiatry 1998; 39: 290-302
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Dubo ED et al. Axis I comorbidity of borderline personality disorder. Am J Pychiatry 1998; 155: 1733-1739
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bohus M, Limberger MF, Frank U et al. Psychometric properties of the Borderline Symptom List (BSL). Psychopathology 2007; 40: 126-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH et al. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 1998; 59: 34-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988; 240: 1285-1293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Youden WJ. An index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; 3: 32-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Zweig MH, Campbell G. Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993; 39: 561-577
    PubMedGoogle Scholar