MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413790453 · doi:10.1186/s40479-025-00310-6

The Borderline Symptom List–Interview: development and psychometric evaluation of an observer-based instrument for assessing symptom severity in borderline personality disorder

2025· article· en· W4413790453 on OpenAlexaff
Büsra Senyüz, Ruben Vonderlin, Carola Claus, Saskia Mahalingam, S. Koch, Ulrich Voderholzer, Tobias Teismann, Nikolaus Kleindienst, Jan R. Böhnke, Stefanie Lis, Tali Boritz, Shelley McMain, Martin Bohus

Bibliographic record

VenueBorderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorderline personality disorderPsychologyClinical psychologyInter-rater reliabilityDistressPsychopathologyMoodMental healthCronbach's alphaPsychiatryPsychometricsRating scaleDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a complex mental health condition characterized by pervasive instability in mood, interpersonal relationships, self-concepts, and behavior. A reliable assessment of BPD symptom severity is essential for effective treatment planning and evaluation. This study introduces and evaluates the Borderline Symptom List Interview (BSL-I), a semi-structured interview designed to assess the severity of BPD symptoms comprehensively. METHOD: The BSL-I is a freely accessible 31-item interview designed to assess BPD symptom severity. It evaluates (a) the frequency and subjective distress associated with BPD-specific and typical psychopathological symptoms, (b) the behavioral consequences of these symptoms, (c) functional impairment, and (d) facets of positive mental health. The items were developed through an iterative process, incorporating feedback from international experts and individuals with lived experience of BPD. Psychometric properties of the BSL-I were examined cross-sectionally in different samples of clients meeting DSM-5 criteria for BPD (n = 171), clinical controls (n = 89), and healthy controls (n = 43). RESULTS: The BSL-I demonstrates good internal consistency within the BPD sample (Cronbach's α = 0.82) and good interrater reliability (ICC = 0.768). It significantly discriminates between BPD clients and clinical controls (Cohen's d = 2.02) and healthy controls (Cohen's d = 3.88). High correlations were observed with other established BPD symptom measures, including the number of IPDE criteria (r = 0.70, p < 0.001) and the BSL-23 (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Our findings indicate that the BSL-I is a reliable and valid multidimensional instrument for assessing the severity of BPD. Both clinical experts and clients found the application of the BSL-I acceptable and feasible. Future research might explore its sensitivity to change resulting from psychosocial treatments and assess its utility for treatment planning and outcome measurement. CONCLUSION: The BSL-I is a practical and psychometrically sound instrument for assessing the severity of BPD symptoms in clinical and research contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorderline Personality Disorder and Emotion DysregulationSame topicPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyFrench-language works237,207