ArticleBorderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation2025
Validating the Italian version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0): internal structure, temporal stability and construct validity.
Article in Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measurement invariance and validation of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in clinical and community samples of Turkish adolescents.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Pathology of the self: a network analysis of personality functioning, narcissistic vulnerability, mentalizing, and epistemic trust across trauma profiles.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2026Article
- The Assessment of the Dissociation of Intimacy: Development and Psychometric Properties of the Dissociation of Intimacy Questionnaire (DIQ).European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
- Correction: Validating the Italian version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0): internal structure, temporal stability and construct validity.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2025Article
- Adaptation and Validation of the Compassionate Capacity Scale for Portuguese Healthcare Students (CCS-PHS).Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContemporary models of personality assessment emphasize a dimensional rather than a categorical framework for measuring an individual's level of personality functioning. This viewpoint has also been incorporated into official diagnostic manuals, such as the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Assessment instruments for personality functioning according to the AMPD are increasingly being developed and used, but controversies remain regarding the two-factor (vs. one-factor) structure and psychometric properties of such instruments in different countries.
methodsTo help fill these gaps in the literature, in this study we tested the internal structure, temporal stability, and construct validity of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0), a convenient self-report screening questionnaire of the AMPD level of personality functioning, on a final sample of 482 non-clinical adults (369 females, 112 males, one non-binary; age range = 18-83, M = 34.6, SD = 16.4). Internal structure of the Italian LPFS-BF 2.0 was tested by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Temporal stability and construct validity of the total score and of the Self and Interpersonal functioning subscale scores were tested using Pearson's correlations and Steiger's Test.
resultsA two-factor structure for the LPFS-BF 2.0 was supported, and correlation analyses provided convergent and discriminant validity evidence for the total and the two Self and Interpersonal subscale scores against external self-report measures of problematic self and interpersonal functioning, overall personality dysfunction, general psychological symptoms and lower quality of life. As such, the total score and the two Self and Interpersonal subscales yielded correlations with external criteria of medium to large effect sizes (i.e., Pearson's r), all significant at the p < .001 level. Finally, the present study provides the first empirical assessment of the LPFS-BF 2.0 temporal stability over an interval of 11.5 weeks, demonstrating a high temporal stability for both the total scale and the two subscales (rs above .70 for all three, ps < .001).
conclusionsThe Italian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 yielded similar psychometric properties to the original scale and other international adaptations, suggesting its utility for personality assessment research and practice.
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.