Identifying personality disorders: towards the development of a clinical screening instrument

Screening for Personality Disorders: A Three-Item Screener From the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-3)

To encourage screening for personality disorders (PDs), we developed (in previous work) self-report scales for PDs using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP). The combined score from three of the scales-inter-personal sensitivity, interpersonal ambivalence, and aggression-requiring 15 items (IIP-15) did the best job of distinguishing between respondents with any versus no PD. The goals for the present work were (a) to cross-validate the IIP-15 by examining its performance using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses in a new sample (N = 410), and (b) to investigate the utility of a brief three-item variant (IIP-3). The present results again documented the good operating characteristics of the IIP-15. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were all above. 70. The operating characteristics of the IIP-3 were nearly as good despite its brevity and support its use as an initial screen for PDs.

Screening for personality disorders

A brief but valid self-report measure to screen for personality disorders (PDs) would be a valuable tool in making decisions about further assessment and in planning optimal treatments. In psychiatric and nonpsychiatric samples, we compared the validity of three screening measures: the PD scales from the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, a self-report version of the Iowa Personality Disorder Screen, and the selfdirectedness scale of the Temperament and Character Inventory. Despite their different theoretical origins, the screeners were highly correlated in a range from .71 to .77. As a result, the use of multiple screeners was not a significant improvement over any individual screener, and no single screener stood out as clearly superior to the others. Each performed modestly in predicting the presence of any PD diagnosis in both the psychiatric and nonpsychiatric groups. Performance was best when predicting a more severe PD diagnosis in the psychiatric sample. The results also highlight the potential value of multiple assessments when relying on self-reports.