How Much Training Do We Need? Assessing the Validity and Interrater Reliability of the PDM-2's Psychodiagnostic Chart among Less Experienced Clinicians.
Saved in:
| Title: | How Much Training Do We Need? Assessing the Validity and Interrater Reliability of the PDM-2's Psychodiagnostic Chart among Less Experienced Clinicians. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Biberdzic, Marko (AUTHOR), Grenyer, Brin F. S. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Personality Assessment. May/Jun2023, Vol. 105 Issue 3, p436-444. 9p. 1 Chart, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Inter-observer reliability, Psychodiagnostics, Psychology students, Medical personnel, Doctoral students, Personality |
| Abstract: | The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual – Second Edition (PDM-2) has emerging evidence supporting its clinical utility, yet one of the main limitations remains the conjecture that considerable training and experience is required. It also remains unclear how the PDM-2 framework compares with current DSM measures of personality pathology such as the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The aim of the present study is to examine these issues by testing whether less clinically experienced second year doctoral psychology students are able to reliably assess patients' level of personality pathology using the PDM-2's Psychodiagnostic Chart (PDC-2), and to investigate the convergence between the PDC-2 and the LPFS. Results showed adequate inter-rater reliability for both of the main PDC-2 axes, with 52% of the variance for the overall personality organization (P-Axis) rating, and 29% of the overall M-Axis score being due to rater consensus. Reliability of individual ratings ranged from fair to excellent for the overall scores on both axes (ICC = 0.59 to.90). Results also showed that student evaluations were valid, with the latter's assessment of the patients' level of personality organization converging both with the experts' rating of the PDC-2 as well as the LPFS. Implications for clinical training are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Personality Assessment is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual – Second Edition (PDM-2) has emerging evidence supporting its clinical utility, yet one of the main limitations remains the conjecture that considerable training and experience is required. It also remains unclear how the PDM-2 framework compares with current DSM measures of personality pathology such as the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The aim of the present study is to examine these issues by testing whether less clinically experienced second year doctoral psychology students are able to reliably assess patients' level of personality pathology using the PDM-2's Psychodiagnostic Chart (PDC-2), and to investigate the convergence between the PDC-2 and the LPFS. Results showed adequate inter-rater reliability for both of the main PDC-2 axes, with 52% of the variance for the overall personality organization (P-Axis) rating, and 29% of the overall M-Axis score being due to rater consensus. Reliability of individual ratings ranged from fair to excellent for the overall scores on both axes (ICC = 0.59 to.90). Results also showed that student evaluations were valid, with the latter's assessment of the patients' level of personality organization converging both with the experts' rating of the PDC-2 as well as the LPFS. Implications for clinical training are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00223891 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/00223891.2022.2086133 |
