Evaluating the Construct Validity of the Norwegian Version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 in a Large Clinical Sample

The Level of Personality Functioning - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) is a 12-item self-report questionnaire developed to gain a quick impression of the severity of personality pathology according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). The current study evaluated the construct validity and reliability of the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in a large clinical sample (N = 1673). Dimensionality was examined using confirmatory factor analysis and bifactor analysis followed by an analysis of distinctiveness of the subscales using the proportional reduction in mean squared error (PRMSE), and the concurrent validity was examined using correlations with self-report questionnaires and clinical interviews assessing PDs according to section II of the DSM-5. Taking the findings of the dimensionality and concurrent validity results together, we found moderate to good support for the use of total scores for the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0. We would advise against the use of subscale scores, since the subscales provided only a small amount of reliable unique variance.</p

Inventory of assessment practices in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in three European countries

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the quality of assessment methods used in the support of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) is scarce. This study aimed to provide an overview of the assessment methods used in practice and to examine whether these instruments were studied for their psychometric properties for people with PIMD. METHOD: Professionals (N = 148) from three European countries completed a survey on assessment practices. We performed a literature search to find information about the psychometric properties of the instruments that were identified in the survey. RESULTS: Of the participants, 78.1% used assessments that were not developed for people with PIMD. Documentation on psychometric properties was found for 8 out of 116 instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the instruments in use were not designed for people with PIMD, and information about their quality is lacking. Guidelines are needed regarding the use and development of assessment methods for people with PIMD