ArticleBorderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation2025
Screening for borderline personality disorder (BPD) in malaysia: a validation study of the McLean screening instrument for BPD.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.