Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40883846›Full record

ArticleBorderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation2025

Screening for borderline personality disorder (BPD) in malaysia: a validation study of the McLean screening instrument for BPD.

Shian-Ling Keng, Hajar Mohd Salleh Sahimi, Lai Fong Chan, Kit-Aun Tan, Samira Vafa, Nur Hani Zainal, Luke Sy-Cherng Woon, Su Hua Sim, Man Kuan Wong, Choon Leng Eu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Shian-Ling KengSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Sunway University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. kengsl@sunway.edu.my.
Hajar Mohd Salleh SahimiDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, The National University of Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Lai Fong ChanDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, The National University of Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Kit-Aun TanDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.
Samira VafaSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medical and Life Sciences, Sunway University, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Nur Hani ZainalDepartment of Psychology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Luke Sy-Cherng WoonDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, The National University of Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Su Hua SimIris Care Group, Cardiff, UK.
Man Kuan WongInPsych Psychological Services and Training, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Choon Leng EuDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, The National University of Malaysia, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

Sunway University GRTIN-RAG(02)-DPSY-12-2024Yale-NUS College R-607-264-328-121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is often underdiagnosed in Malaysia due to limited specialized training and validated screening tools. Although the McLean Screening Instrument for BPD (MSI-BPD) is a well-established measure, it lacks validation in Southeast Asia. This study evaluated the MSI-BPD's psychometric properties in a Malaysian context.

methodsTwo samples, including a clinical sample of psychiatric outpatients (N = 101; mean age = 28.02 years; 74.3% female) and a healthy control group (N = 314; mean age = 29.75 years; 74.8% female), were recruited from a public hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and a private university in Malaysia, respectively. Participants in the clinical sample completed the MSI-BPD along with other self-report psychological symptom measures, and BPD diagnoses were confirmed through a semi-structured clinical interview. Psychometric analyses were conducted on the clinical sample to assess the scale's internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, factor structure, and predictive validity concerning BPD diagnosis. Both the clinical and healthy control samples were included in a known-groups validity analysis to further evaluate the scale.

resultsThe MSI-BPD exhibited good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.82) and convergent validity, as evidenced by significant correlations with related psychological symptoms. The scale also demonstrated good discriminant validity and predictive accuracy (area under the curve = 0.91), with an optimal cut-off score of 8. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a four-factor model (with factors identified being affective disturbances, impulsivity, unstable relationships, and disturbed cognition) as the best fit among the five evaluated models. The study also established the known-groups validity of the MSI-BPD, demonstrating its ability to distinguish clinical samples from healthy controls, with clinical participants scoring significantly higher than controls.

conclusionsThe MSI-BPD is a valid and reliable tool for screening BPD in Malaysia. The findings enhance our understanding of BPD's construct validity and factor structure in Southeast Asia, which leads to a more universal and cross-cultural understanding of BPD. Validating the screening instrument is crucial for improving mental health assessments and interventions, as well as strategies to better identify individuals at-risk for BPD for early intervention optimizing outcomes in a low-resource Southeast Asian context.

Indexed as

Borderline personality disorderMcLean screening instrument for BPDPsychiatric outpatientsPsychometric validation

Identifiers

PMID40883846
PMCPMC12395783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.