Construct validity of the adolescent borderline personality disorder: a review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the term borderline personality disorder (BPD) is used to describe adolescents in clinical settings, there is confusion as to what it comprises. To further elucidate that diagnosis, this article reviews its construct validity. METHOD: Relevant publications appearing in PsychInfo (1872 to present) were reviewed for the purposes of this article. RESULTS: Thirty-six of the approximately sixty-five publications selected for consideration were included in this review. CONCLUSION: The construct validity of adolescent BPD is supported by internal consistency (comparable to that of adults), group differences (ie this diagnosis segregates BPD from non-BPD adolescents), convergent validity (ie multiple measures of this disorder measure the same pathology) and concurrent validity, whereby these youth manifest functional impairment and distress. By contrast, the adolescent BPD criteria manifest less construct validity than the adult diagnosis in that its criteria did not uniformly predict the overall diagnosis, and showed more criterion overlap with other personality disorders and a broader pattern of axis II comorbidity. Further diminishing its construct validity, factor analysis suggested that adolescent BPD was not a single entity, and its low predictive validity was demonstrated by little diagnostic stability through adolescence into adulthood.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".