Search

In this ex post facto study, the most frequent Personality Disorders (PDs) related to pathological gambling are described. A sample of 50 consecutively recruited treatment-seeking pathological gamblers was compared to 50 consecutively recruited psychiatric outpatients with non-addictive disorders and to 50 normative subjects from the general population with the same demographic features (age, sex, and socioeconomic level) to find out the prevalence of PDs. All participants were assessed with the International Personality Disorders Examination (IPDE), the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-II), and with the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS). According to the results, 32% of pathological gamblers and 16% of the general clinical sample (versus 8% of the normative sample) showed at least one personality disorder. The most prevalent ones were the borderline personality disorder (16%), followed by the antisocial, narcissistic, and non specified personality disorders (8% each). The coincidence about the number and the kind of PDs diagnosed by both instruments was not strong. Finally, implications of this study for clinical practice and future research in this field are commented upon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present ex post facto study aims to find out the prevalence of personality disorders (PD) in patients with eating disorders (ED) and to determine the concordance between the IPDE and MCMI-II to assess PDs in patients with an ED. Using the International Personality Disorders Examination (IPDE) and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-Il (MCMI-II) it was compared the personality profile in 84 outpatients with eating disorders. The statistical analyses have been carried out using Kappa statistic, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. The 54.8% of the overall sample met criteria for at least one personality disorder on the IPDE and 77.4% met the criteria on the MCMI-II. The concordance between the two measures was only marginal. The MCMI-II tend to overdiagnose specific PDs, so it is not a good assessment measure for doing PDs diagnosis. This fact is a challenge for the clinical evaluation, so implications for further research in this area are commented upon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]