ArticlePloS one2024
The Portuguese version of the self-report form of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS-SR) in a community and clinical sample.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical cut scores for the Farsi version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR).BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Self-Reported Personality Functioning in Patients With Substance Use Disorders: Similarities and Specifics With Respect to the Czech Community Sample.Alpha psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR) operationalizes Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. The current study aimed 1) to examine the internal consistency of the Portuguese version of the LPFS-SR in a community sample and a clinical sample, 2) to compare non-clinical participants (N = 282, Mage = 48.01, SD = 10.87) with two samples of clinical participants, one composed of patients with a personality disorder diagnosis (PD sample, n = 40, Mage = 46.18, SD = 13.59) and the other of patients with other psychiatric diagnoses (OD sample, n = 148, Mage = 49.49, SD = 11.88), with respect to LPFS-SR dimensions and total score, 3) to examine the capacity of the LPFS-SR to discriminate between samples through the ROC curve analyses, and 4) to examine the factor structure of the Portuguese version of the LPFS-SR. The Portuguese version of the LPFS-SR revealed adequate internal consistency results, akin to the original data, in the community and clinical samples. The community sample differed significantly from both clinical samples in all the LPFS-SR dimensions and total score. The ROC curve analysis indicated an optimal cut-off for the total score of 272.00, corresponding to a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 89%, in the PD vs. community samples. The LPFS-SR total score discriminative capacity between the PD and OD samples was lower, albeit also significant (area-under-the-curve of .63; p = .027; 95% CI: .52-.74). The current study provided evidence of the LPFS-SR's unidimensionality in both community and clinical samples. Although this study has limitations, its findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the LPFS-SR construct, as well as to its cross-cultural validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.