Interpersonal Assessment of Borderline Personality Disorder: Preliminary Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the reliability and validity of scores on an interpersonal measure of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Ratings on the Interpersonal Measure of Borderline Personality Disorder (IM-B) were based on nonverbal behaviors and interpersonal interactions occurring during clinical interviews with 276 adults. Scores on the IM-B exhibited good reliability. IM-B scores also displayed expected patterns of associations with scores on other measures of BPD, as well as with scores on measures of affective dysfunction, interpersonal pathology, and behavioral impairment associated with BPD, including indexes of maladaptive emotion regulation, interpersonal sensitivity, and self-harm. The pattern of associations for IM-B scores was quite similar to what would be expected for a dimensional measure of BPD symptoms. Scores on the IM-B were also associated with symptoms of disorders generally comorbid with BPD. Finally, IM-B scores contributed incrementally to the prediction of interpersonal dysfunction and suicidal ideation and behavior. Discussion focuses on implications for the assessment of BPD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".