Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO): Preliminary Psychometrics in a Clinical Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we describe the development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO), a semistructured interview designed for the dimensional assessment of identity, primitive defenses, and reality testing, the three primary content domains in the model of personality health and disorder elaborated by Kernberg (1984; Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). Results of this investigation, conducted in a clinical sample representing a broad range of personality pathology, indicate that identity and primitive defenses as operationalized in the STIPO are internally consistent and that interrater reliability for all 3 content domains is adequate. Validity findings suggest that the assessment of one's sense of self and significant others (Identity) is predictive of measures of positive and negative affect, whereas the maladaptive ways in which the subject uses his or her objects for purposes of regulating one's self experience (Primitive Defenses) is predictive of measures of aggression and personality disorder traits associated with cluster B personality disorders. We discuss implications of these findings in terms of the theory-driven and trait-based assessment of personality pathology.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".