ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Level of personality functioning scale-brief form 2.0: validity and reliability of the Chinese version.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-5 and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11, the concept of personality functioning (self-functioning and interpersonal functioning) is officially introduced as the core feature for diagnosing personality disorder. The current study investigated the psychometric characteristics of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) in Chinese.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study. We recruited psychiatric outpatients in China to test the reliability, structural and convergent validity of the LPFS-BF 2.0. The sample was randomly split half to perform exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF) was used to examine the convergent validity.
resultsA total of 441 patients (35.84 ± 9.48 years) completed questionnaires in valid forms, of which 147 (66.8%) participants were female. The average score of the LPFS-BF 2.0 scale was 25.36 ± 7.95 (full score = 48). The Hull method supported the unidimensional structure of LPFS-BF2.0 (UniCo = 0.98, ECV = 0.85, and MIREAL = 0.28). The CFA indicated a more excellent fit for the two-factor model (χ2/df = 1.81, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.96). The LPFS-BF 2.0 and both subscales showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.83∼0.90) and significant correlation with PID-5-BF (r = 0.28∼0.66).
conclusionsThe Chinese version of LPFS-BF 2.0 scales is a valid and reliable rating scale to measure personality functioning among Chinese patients.
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.