| Summary: | Thesis (Ph.D.) -- Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1977. Medicine Bibliography: leaves [212]-219 This investigation was undertaken to examine the utility of the typology of personality disorders proposed by the psychiatrist Schneider. Eighty-one subjects were examined. They were seen in the practice of one clinical psychiatrist during a one-year period. -- The characteristics of the sample have been described. The commonest reason for referral was the development of neurotic symptoms. In 17 per cent of cases, no presenting problem could be identified other than direct manifestations of a personality disorder. -- Summaries of the patients’ histories and audio- recordings of them were presented to independent psychiatrists for diagnosis. Examples of eight of the ten personality disorders described by Schneider were identified with unanimous agreement. The exceptions were the fanatic and labile types. -- Higher reliability was found for the diagnosis of personality disorders than was suggested by earlier reports. In typical cases, Schneider's typology was more reliable than the ICD-8 classification of personality disorders, but some of the types were able to be diagnosed more reliably than others. -- An adjective check-list was completed for every patient and the adjectives were subjected to a principal components analysis. A set of rating scales was developed from the first five components and used to assign the patients to their most appropriate types. It proved to be able to discriminate between the types and evidence of its reliability and validity was found. -- The profiles provided by a psychological test battery demonstrated the content validity of the typology. Predictions of anthropometric differences in certain types were not confirmed, except that female patients with affective personality disorders had greater body 'bulk' than the others. -- Numerical taxonomy was performed on the clinical data provided by the sample. Highly significant associations were found between the resulting clusters of subjects and the diagnoses made with the rating scales.
|
|---|