Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35796597›Full record

ArticleResearch in psychotherapy (Milano)2022

Reliability and factorial validity of long and brief versions of the inventory of personality organization in a Latvian sample.

Aija De Starceva-Apele, Malgozata Rascevska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research in psychotherapy (Milano), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aija De Starceva-ApeleDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Psychology and Art, University of Latvia, Riga. aija.apele@gmail.com.
Malgozata RascevskaDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Psychology and Art, University of Latvia, Riga. malgozata.rascevska@lu.lv.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the construct validity and reliability of long and brief versions (57 and 16 items) of the inventory of personality organization (IPO) in a Latvian nonclinical sample. The actuality of this study is dictated by the number of persons suffering from personality disorders, and the excessive need for reliable constructs for the assessment of personality in the normality-abnormality range. The total number of participants of the study was 1118, recruited in several subsamples, which were employed for the investigation of the factor structure, psychometric properties, test-retest, and convergent validity of the IPO-57 and IPO-16 scales. The 3-factor structure, obtained by confirmatory factor analysis, was replicated in the Latvian-speaking sample for long and brief IPO versions. Both constructs achieved adequate model fit psychometric indices and sufficient internal consistency, and the test-retest reliability was also approved. The convergent validity of IPO with aggressivity, negative affectivity, and non-adaptive personality measures was established. In the current study, we adapted a very fundamental psychodynamic/psychoanalytic construct in the Latvian language and replicated the previously empirically established IPO three-dimensional model, whereas the novelty in IPO construct convergent validity research was the establishment of convergent validity with non-adaptive personality traits measured by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF). Both versions of IPO are recommended for further use in the research in Latvian language samples, for clinical purposes to assess the level of psychic functioning, and for treatment planning and evaluation purposes.

Identifiers

PMID35796597
PMCPMC9422320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.