Psychometric Properties of the German Version of the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index - Version IV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the borderline personality disorder severity index--version IV (BPDSI-IV) has already been used in several studies, psychometric properties are only known from two developing studies. SAMPLING AND METHODS: To examine item characteristics, reliability, and validity indicators, a large sample including subjects with borderline personality disorder (n = 163), a mixed psychiatric group (n = 58), and a healthy control group (n = 43) were interviewed with the German version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (SCID-II) as well as the BPDSI-IV. RESULTS: The indices for interrater reliability as well as internal consistency of the BPDSI-IV were excellent to good. The total score and the subscales of the BPDSI-IV discriminated between diagnostic subgroups. As expected, its subscales were associated with the scores in the SCID-II and applied self-rating measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a subsequent version, subscales might have to be adapted to the proposed traits of the borderline type in DSM-V.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".