Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire (LoPF-Q) 12–18 Turkish Version: Reliability, Validity, Factor Structure and Relationship with Comorbid Psychopathology in a Turkish Adolescent Sample

Abstract

Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire (LoPF-Q 12–18) is a scale developed for adolescents to assess impairments in personality functioning inspired by criterion A in the Alternative Models for Personality Disorder (AMPD) in DSM-5 and the upcoming ICD-11. In this study, we aim to evaluate the validity and reliability of a Turkish culture-adaption of LoPF-Q 12–18. The study was conducted with a student (n = 282) and a clinical sample (n = 52), 41% of the participants were male, and 59% were female. The questionnaire showed good scale reliability alpha and a sound unidimensional factor structure build of four scales of functioning: Identity, Self-direction, Empathy, and Intimacy. Aspects of convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). There were medium to strong positive relationships between the LoPF-Q 12–18 and the SDQ scores reflecting pathology in line with theory. Clinical validity could be demonstrated, the LoPF-Q 12–18 total score differed significantly and with a large effect size of 1.2 standard deviations between the school sample and a sample of N = 25 patients with diagnosed PD. In general, our results support the validity of the Turkish version of the LoPF-Q 12–18 and emphasize the benefits of using the dimensional severity concept for the classification of personality disorders already in adolescence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bach, B., & First, M. B. (2018). Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. BMC Psychiatry, 18, 351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1908-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bach, B., & Hutsebaut, J. (2018). Level of personality functioning scale–brief form 2.0: Utility in capturing personality problems in psychiatric outpatients and incarcerated addicts. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(6), 660–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1428984.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baie, L., Hucklenbroich, K., Hampel, N., Ehrenthal, J. C., Heuft, G., & Burgmer, M. (2020). Level of personality functioning (OPD-2) and the symptom severity of posttraumatic stress disorder - a cohort study. Zeitschrift fur Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, 66(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.13109/zptm.2020.66.1.5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barkauskienė, R., & Skabeikytė, G. (2020). Culture-adapted version Lithuanian of the self-report questionnaire LoPF-Q 12-18 (levels of personality functioning questionnaire; authors Goth & Schmeck) - short manual. Offenbach: academic-tests.

  6. Bender, D. S., Morey, L. C., & Skodol, A. E. (2011). Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part I: A review of theory and methods. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(4), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.583808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bornovalova, M. A., Hicks, B. M., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2009). Stability, change, and heritability of borderline personality disorder traits from adolescence to adulthood: A longitudinal twin study. Development and Psychopathology, 21(4), 1335–1353. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990186.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Buer Christensen, T., Eikenaes, I., Hummelen, B., Pedersen, G., Nysæter, T. E., Bender, D. S., Skodol, A. E., & Selvik, S. G. (2020). Level of personality functioning as a predictor of psychosocial functioning-concurrent validity of criterion a. Personality disorders, 11(2), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cerutti, R., Manca, M., Presaghi, F., & Gratz, K. L. (2011). Prevalence and clinical correlates of deliberate self-harm among a community sample of Italian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 34(2), 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chanen, A. M., & Kaess, M. (2012). Developmental pathways to borderline personality disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports, 14(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-011-0242-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chanen, A., Sharp, C., & Hoffman, P. (2017). Prevention and early intervention for borderline personality disorder: A novel public health priority. World Psychiatry, 16(2), 215–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20429.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Clarkin, J. F., Hull, J. W., Cantor, J., & Sanderson, C. (1993). Borderline personality disorder and personality traits: A comparison of SCID-II BPD and NEO-PI. Psychological Assessment, 5(4), 472–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.4.472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen, P., Crawford, T. N., Johnson, J. G., & Kasen, S. (2005). The children in the community study of developmental course of personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(5), 466–486. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2005.19.5.466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. International Test Commission (2010). International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. http://www.intestcom.org.

  15. Coskunol, H., Bagdiken, I., Sorias, S., & Saygili, R. (1994). Reliability of SCID-II (Turkish version) in personality disorders. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 9(32), 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema, 29(2), 236–240. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gamache, D., Savard, C., Leclerc, P., & Côté, A. (2019). Introducing a short self-report for the assessment of DSM-5 level of personality functioning for personality disorders: The self and interpersonal functioning scale. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10(5), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15(1–2), 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007870050057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goth, K., Birkhölzer, M., & Schmeck, K. (2018a). Assessment of personality functioning in adolescents with the LoPF–Q 12–18 self-report questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(6), 680–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1489258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goth, K., Birkhölzer, M., & Schmeck, K. (2018b). LoPF-Q 12-18 (levels of personality functioning questionnaire) German version: A self-report questionnaire for measuring personality functioning in adolescence – Short description. Offenbach: academic-tests. http://www.academic-tests.com

  21. Güvenir, T., Özbek, A., Baykara, B., Arkar, H., Şentürk, B., & İncekaş, S. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Turk Journal Child Adolescent Mental Health, 15(2), 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hemmati, A., Morey, L. C., McCredie, M. N., Rezaei, F., Nazari, A., & Rahmani, F. (2020). Validation of the Persian translation of the level of personality functioning scale—Self-report (LPFS-SR): Comparison of college students and patients with personality disorders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 42, 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-019-09775-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D79B73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hopwood, C. J. (2019). Research and assessment with the AMPD. In C. J. Hopwood, A. L. Muray, & M. H. Waugh (Eds.), The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality disorders (pp. 77–95). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hopwood, C. J., Good, E. W., & Morey, L. C. (2018). Validity of the DSM–5 levels of personality functioning scale–self report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(6), 650–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1420660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huprich, S. K., Nelson, S. M., Meehan, K. B., Siefert, C. J., Haggerty, G., Sexton, J., Dauphin, V. B., Macaluso, M., Jackson, J., Zackula, R., & Baade, L. (2018). Introduction of the DSM-5 levels of personality functioning questionnaire. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9(6), 553–563. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Karukivi, M., Vahlberg, T., Horjamo, K., Nevalainen, M., & Korkeila, J. (2017). Clinical importance of personality difficulties: Diagnostically sub-threshold personality disorders. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1200-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kassin, M., & Hackradt, J. (2019). Culture-adapted version Spanish Mexico of the self-report questionnaire LoPF-Q 12-18 (levels of personality functioning questionnaire; authors Goth & Schmeck) - short manual. Offenbach: academic-tests. https://academic-tests.com/lopf-q/

  31. Lorenzo-Seva, U., Timmerman, M. E., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2011). The hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 340–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.564527.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McCabe, G. A., & Widiger, T. A. (2020). Discriminant validity of the alternative model of personality disorder. Psychological Assessment, 32(12), 1158–1171. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000955.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pincus, A. L. (2018). An interpersonal perspective on criterion a of the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders. Current Opinion in Psychology, 21, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016a). Applying Bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016b). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sanatinia, R., Wang, D., Tyrer, P., Tyrer, H., Crawford, M., Cooper, S., Loebenberg, G., & Barrett, B. (2016). Impact of personality status on the outcomes and cost of cognitive-behavioural therapy for health anxiety. British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(3), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.115.173526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sharp, C, & Vanwoerden, S. (2018). Culture-adapted version English USA of the self-report questionnaire LoPF-Q 12-18 (levels of personality functioning questionnaire; authors Goth & Schmeck) - short manual. Offenbach: academic-tests. https://academic-tests.com/lopf-q/

  38. Sharp, C., & De Clercq, B. (2020). Personality pathology in youth. In C. W. Lejuez & K. L. Gratz (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality disorders (pp. 74–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sharp, C., & Fonagy, P. (2015). Practitioner review: Borderline personality disorder in adolescence - recent conceptualization, intervention, and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 56(12), 1266–1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shiner, R. L. (2007). Personality disorders. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Assessment of childhood disorders (4th ed., pp. 781–816). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Shiner, R., & Tackett, J. L. (2014). Personality disorders in children and adolescents. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 848–896). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Siefert, C. J., Sexton, J., Meehan, K., Nelson, S., Haggerty, G., Dauphin, B., & Huprich, S. (2020). Development of a short form for the DSM–5 levels of personality functioning questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(4), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1594842.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Skodol, A. E., Bender, D. S., Oldham, J. M., Clark, L. A., Morey, L. C., Verheul, R., et al. (2011). Proposed changes in personality and personality disorder assessment and diagnosis for DSM-5 part II: Clinical application. Personal Disorders, 2(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Skodol, A. E. (2012). Personality disorders in DSM-5. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sleep, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., Crowe, M. L., & Miller, J. D. (2019). An evaluation of DSM-5 section III personality disorder criterion a (impairment) in accounting for psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 31(10), 1181–1191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Trull, T. J., & Durrett, C. A. (2005). Categorical and dimensional models of personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Verheul, R., & Widiger, T. A. (2004). A meta-analysis of the prevalence and usage of the personality disorder not otherwise specified (PDNOS) diagnosis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(4), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2004.18.4.309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Weekers, L. C., Hutsebaut, J., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2019). The level of personality functioning scale-brief form 2.0: Update of a brief instrument for assessing level of personality functioning. Personality and Mental Health, 13(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Widiger, T. A., & Samuel, D. B. (2005). Diagnostic categories or dimensions? A question for the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders - fifth edition. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(4), 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., & C. P. (2002). Diagnosis of personality disorder using the five-factor model and the proposed DSM–5. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 89–99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Zimmermann, J., Müller, S., Bach, B., Hutsebaut, J., Hummelen, B., & Fische, F. (2020). A common metric for self-reported severity of personality disorders. Psychopathology, 53, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Financial support and sponsorship Nil.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation was performed by Sefa Cosgun, Kirstin Goth, Suleyman Cakiroglu, data collection performed by Sefa Cosgun and Suleyman Cakiroglu, analysis were performed by Sefa Cosgun, Kirstin Goth, Suleyman Cakiroglu. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sefa Cosgun and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sefa Cosgun.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Van Training and Research Hospital.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for Publication

Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.

Experiment Participants

All the participants were selected from volunteers, who signed written consent for announcing the willingness to respond to the measures.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cosgun, S., Goth, K. & Cakiroglu, S. Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire (LoPF-Q) 12–18 Turkish Version: Reliability, Validity, Factor Structure and Relationship with Comorbid Psychopathology in a Turkish Adolescent Sample. J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-021-09867-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Personality
  • Disorder
  • Functioning
  • Adolescent
  • AMPD
  • LPFS