Skip to main content
Log in

The concurrent validity of three self-report measures of borderline personality

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recent accumulation of self-report measures of borderline personality disorder (BPD) affords the opportunity to evaluate both the construct validity of the concept and the quality of these measures. This study examines the relationship among three recently developed self-report instruments for assessing BPD from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), the MMPI Personality Disorders Scales (MPD; Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985), and the Bell Object Relations Inventory (BORI: Bell, Billington, & Becker, 1986). Data on the three measures were provided by 119 undergraduate subjects from a southeastern university. A correlational analysis addresses the convergence of these measures of BPD, their divergence from measures of different but related traits, and their independence from variance due to method. Application of the Campbell-Fiske (1959) criteria indicates adequate convergence for all the BPD measures but a lack of discriminant validity for the BORI scales. The fit of the data to a structural model of construct validity is tested using confirmatory factor analysis, and these results are consistent with the hypothesis of a latent borderline trait factor independent of measurement method factors. In sum, the construct validity of the borderline personality concept using self-report methodologies receives support, and a strong association between borderline personality and paranoid phenomena is also suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alwin, D. F. (1974). Approaches to the interpretation of relationships in the multitrait-multimethod matrix. In H. L. Costner (Ed.),Sociological methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association (1980).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. T.., & Freeman, A. (1990).Cognitive therapy of personality disorders. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. (1989).An introduction to the Bell Object Relations Reality Testing Inventory. Unpublished manuscript. West Haven, CT: Psychology Service, VA Medical Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M., Billington, R., & Becker, B. (1986). A scale for the assessment of object relations: Reliability, validity, and factorial invariance.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 733–741.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M., Billington, R., Cicchetti, D., & Gibbons, J. (1988). Do object relations deficits distinguish BPD from other diagnostic groups?Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 511–516.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1989).EQS structural equations program manual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conte, H. R., Plutchik, R., Karasu, T. B., & Jerrett, I. (1980). A self-report borderline scale: Discriminative validity and preliminary norms.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168, 428–435.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity of psychological tests.Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, M. (1984). Splitting: the development of a measure.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 157–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, R. (1989). A two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and implications for assessment,Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, K. A., & Morey, L. C. (1990). Reliability of categorical and dimensional judgments of personality disorders.American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 498–500.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hurt, S. W., Clarkin, J. F., Frances, A., Abrams, R., & Hunt, H. (1985). Discriminant validity of the MMPI for borderline personality disorder.Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 56–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hyler, S. E., Reider, R. O., Williams, J. B., Spitzer, R. L., Hendler, J., & Lyons, M. (1987).Personality diagnostic questionnaire-revised (PDQ-R). New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, D. C. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory factor analysis.Psychometrika, 34, 183–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavoussi, R. J., Coccaro, E. F., Klar, H. M., Bernstein, D., & Siever, L. J. (1990). Structured interviews for borderline personality disorder.American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1522–1525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. (1976). An empirical application of confirmatory factor analysis to the multitrait-multimethod matrix.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 247–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernberg, O. F. (1967). Borderline personality organization.Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 15, 641–685.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGlashan, T. H. (1986). The Chestnut Lodge follow-up study. III. Long-term outcome of borderline patients.Archives of General Psychiatry, 43, 20–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (1988a). The categorical representation of personality disorder: A cluster analysis of DSM-III-R personality features.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 314–321.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (1988b). Personality disorders in DSM-III and DSM-III-R: convergence, coverage, and internal consistency.American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 573–577.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (1991).Personality assessment inventory: professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C., & Smith, M. R. (1988). Personality disorders. In R. Greene (Ed.),The MMPI: Use with specific populations. New York: Grune and Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). MMPI scales for DSM-III personality disorders: Their derivation and correlates.Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245–251.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C., Blashfield, R. K., Webb, W. W., & Jewell, J. (1988). MMPI scales for DSM-III personality disorders: A preliminary validation study.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 47–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, J. M., Skodol, A. E., Kellman, H. D., Hyler, S. E., Rosnick, L., & Davies, M. (1992). Diagnosis of DSM-III-R personality disorders by two structured interviews: Patterns of comorbidity.American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 213–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., Sanderson, C., & Warner, L. (1986). The MMPI, prototypal typology, and borderline personality disorder.Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 540–553.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kurtz, J.E., Morey, L.C. & Tomarken, A.J. The concurrent validity of three self-report measures of borderline personality. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 15, 255–266 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371382

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01371382

Key words

Navigation