4.3 Article

Clinical Assessment of Affective Instability: Comparing EMA Indices, Questionnaire Reports, and Retrospective Recall

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 425-436

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0016869

关键词

borderline personality disorder; affective instability; ecological momentary assessment; retrospective report

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R21MH069472] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R21 MH069472-01A1, MH069472, R21 MH069472] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditional self-report measures of psychopathology may be influenced by a variety of recall biases. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) reduces these biases by assessing individuals' experiences as they occur in their natural environments. This study examines the discrepancy between trait questionnaire, retrospective report, and EMA measures of affective instability in psychiatric outpatients either with a borderline personality diagnosis (n = 58) or with a current episode of major depressive disorder or dysthymia (n = 42). The authors examined the agreement of 3 trait measures of affective instability the Affective Instability subscale of the Personality Assessment Inventory-Borderline Features scale (L. C. Morey, 1991), the Affect Intensity Measure (R. J. Larsen, E. Diener, & R. Emmons, 1986), and the Affect Lability Scales (P. D. Harvey, B. R. Greenberg, & M. R. Serper, 1989)-and 1 retrospective mood recall task with EMA indices of mood and mood instability. Results indicate only modest to moderate agreement between momentary and questionnaire assessments of trait affective instability; agreement between recalled mood changes and EMA indices was poor. Implications for clinical research and practice and possible applications of EMA methodology are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据