4.3 Article

Assessing DSM-5 Nonsuicidal Self-Injury Disorder in a Clinical Sample

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 31-41

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/pas0000021

Keywords

self-injury; DSM-5; psychometrics; clinical utility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The entry for nonsuicidal self-injury (NSI) disorder in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) provides a criterion-based definition of clinically relevant NSI. NSI disorder is currently classified in the DSM-5 as a condition requiring further study. The present study aimed to examine the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of a self-report measure of NSI disorder, the Alexian Brothers Assessment of Self-Injury (ABASI). The sample included 511 patients admitted to an acute care treatment program designed to treat NSI. Patients were administered the ABASI as part of a clinical assessment and routine outcome evaluation. The sample included a broad age range, as well as sufficient numbers of males and Hispanics to examine sociodemographic differences. The ABASI demonstrated adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and the factor structure reflects NSI disorder criteria. Among patients being treated for NSI, 74% met criteria for NSI disorder. No differences in the rate of NSI disorder were observed by sex, ethnicity, or age. Although NSI disorder is associated with a worse presentation of self-injurious behavior, NSI disorder provides limited clinical utility as a dichotomous diagnosis, at least when compared with common NSI characteristics such as number of methods of NSI and the urge to self-injure. Instead, findings support a dimensional approach to NSI disorder. Analyses of specific symptoms of NSI disorder indicate concerns with Criterion B as currently defined by the DSM-5. Recommendations for a more parsimonious revision of NSI disorder are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available