ArticleBMC psychology2026
Measurement invariance and validation of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in clinical and community samples of Turkish adolescents.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the limited number of validation studies on the LPFS-BF 2.0 in adolescents and scarce test-retest data, the current study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in adolescents.
methodsThe scale was translated in accordance with International Test Commission guidelines and administered to 170 clinical and 184 community adolescents aged 12-18 years (N = 354). Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted separately in the two groups using Principal Axis Factoring (PAF). Factor retention was evaluated using eigenvalues greater than 1, scree plot inspection, and Horn's parallel analysis, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the theoretically expected two-factor structure. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine measurement invariance across clinical and community samples. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, convergent validity was evaluated through correlations with the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), Borderline Personality Features Scale for Children-Short Form (BPFSC-SF), Personality Belief Questionnaire-Short Form (PBQ-SF), and number of psychiatric diagnoses, and test-retest reliability was examined in a clinical subsample.
resultsEFA revealed a two-factor structure in the clinical sample and a three-factor structure in the community sample. Horn's parallel analysis supported a two-factor structure in both samples, and CFA confirmed the two-factor model reflecting self- and interpersonal functioning, with acceptable fit indices in both groups. Measurement invariance analyses indicated configural, metric, and partial scalar invariance across the two samples, supporting the comparability of the scale across diagnostically distinct adolescent groups. Internal consistency was acceptable to good in the clinical group (α = 0.72-0.83) and somewhat lower in the community group (α = 0.61-0.79). LPFS-BF 2.0 scores showed significant positive associations with theoretically related constructs, including borderline personality features, maladaptive personality beliefs, and psychological distress, providing support for convergent validity. Test-retest reliability in a subsample of clinical participants yielded moderate correlations over a six-month interval (r = 0.46-0.51).
conclusionsOverall, the findings support the Turkish LPFS-BF 2.0 as a brief, reliable, and valid measure of self- and interpersonal functioning in adolescents, consistent with the DSM-5 Section III conceptualization of personality pathology. The results further suggest that the scale functions similarly across clinical and community samples and may be useful in both research and clinical settings.
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.