Psychometric Evaluation of the Borderline Personality Disorder Checklist.
Saved in:
| Title: | Psychometric Evaluation of the Borderline Personality Disorder Checklist. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Mayer, Philippa Lynn (AUTHOR), Westermair, Anna Lisa (AUTHOR), Assmann, Nele (AUTHOR), Bloo, Joos (AUTHOR), Calvo, Natalia (AUTHOR), De Panfilis, Chiara (AUTHOR), Fassbinder, Eva (AUTHOR), Ferrer, Marc (AUTHOR), Jacob, Gitta (AUTHOR), Richetin, Juliette (AUTHOR), Schaich, Anja (AUTHOR), Preti, Emanuele (AUTHOR), Klein, Jan Philipp (AUTHOR), Arntz, Arnoud (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. Sep2025, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p1-10. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Borderline personality disorder, Psychometrics, Statistical reliability, Patient reported outcome measures, Test validity, Psychological distress |
| Abstract: | Background: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a severe and disabling condition. The Borderline Personality Disorder Checklist (BPDCL) was designed to specifically assess the subjective burden of a patient due to BPD symptoms. Various translations have been developed, but an assessment of the psychometric properties of these translations is needed. The aim was to examine the psychometric qualities of the BPDCL across different languages (i.e., Italian, Dutch, German, Spanish, English, and Greek). Methods: Secondary data was used by reaching out to various researchers, who administered the BPDCL in previous studies. Five studies (N = 3199) conducted in Spain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, England, and Greece, were included in the current data set. The BPDCL was administered to BPD patients (N = 1131), Axis I disorder patients (N = 57), patients with other personality disorders (N = 225), and healthy controls (N = 1786). Item analyses and analyses assessing the known‐groups and convergent validity were performed to investigate the psychometric properties of the checklist. Results: Each version of the BPDCL, differing in language, demonstrated high‐reliability coefficients (Cronbach's Alpha ranged from 0.93 to 0.96 and was 0.96 for the entire sample). The correlations between the BPDCL and other instruments, used in the studies, were weak to strong. Correlations greater than 0.55 were observed between the BPDCL and the scales BPDSI, SCL‐90 and the BSI. In addition, the BPDCL seems to differentiate well between diagnostic groups. BPD patients scored the highest, followed by patients with other personality disorders, who in turn scored higher than Axis I disorder patients and healthy controls. Conclusions: In general, the BPDCL possesses good psychometric properties and seems to be an adequate self‐report instrument to measure the subjective burden of BPD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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: | Background: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a severe and disabling condition. The Borderline Personality Disorder Checklist (BPDCL) was designed to specifically assess the subjective burden of a patient due to BPD symptoms. Various translations have been developed, but an assessment of the psychometric properties of these translations is needed. The aim was to examine the psychometric qualities of the BPDCL across different languages (i.e., Italian, Dutch, German, Spanish, English, and Greek). Methods: Secondary data was used by reaching out to various researchers, who administered the BPDCL in previous studies. Five studies (N = 3199) conducted in Spain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, England, and Greece, were included in the current data set. The BPDCL was administered to BPD patients (N = 1131), Axis I disorder patients (N = 57), patients with other personality disorders (N = 225), and healthy controls (N = 1786). Item analyses and analyses assessing the known‐groups and convergent validity were performed to investigate the psychometric properties of the checklist. Results: Each version of the BPDCL, differing in language, demonstrated high‐reliability coefficients (Cronbach's Alpha ranged from 0.93 to 0.96 and was 0.96 for the entire sample). The correlations between the BPDCL and other instruments, used in the studies, were weak to strong. Correlations greater than 0.55 were observed between the BPDCL and the scales BPDSI, SCL‐90 and the BSI. In addition, the BPDCL seems to differentiate well between diagnostic groups. BPD patients scored the highest, followed by patients with other personality disorders, who in turn scored higher than Axis I disorder patients and healthy controls. Conclusions: In general, the BPDCL possesses good psychometric properties and seems to be an adequate self‐report instrument to measure the subjective burden of BPD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10498931 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/mpr.70029 |
