Assessing the DSM-IV Structure of Personality Disorder With a Sample of Chinese Psychiatric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The validity of the three-cluster system of personality disorders (PDs) in the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; APA, 1994) was examined in a sample of Chinese psychiatric patients (n = 227), who completed the self-report Personality Disorders Questionnaire for DSM-IV (PDQ-4; Hyler, 1994) and who were also administered the clinician-rated Personality Disorders Interview-IV (PDI-IV; Widiger, Mangine, Corbit, Ellis, & Thomas,). Using confirmatory factor analysis, a three-factor model corresponding to the DSM-IV clusters was tested and compared statistically to a one-factor model and a set of random, three-factor models. Only the clinician-rated instrument supported the DSM-IV three-cluster model, and then only when the factors were allowed to correlate. Results from the theoretically more rigorous uncorrelated model testing did not support the DSM-IV model for either assessment modality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".