FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2161616531> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2161616531 endingPage "395" @default.
• W2161616531 startingPage "395" @default.
• W2161616531 abstract "Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Letter to the EditorFull AccessDr. Koenigsberg and Colleagues ReplyHAROLD W. KOENIGSBERG, M.D., PHILIP D. HARVEY, Ph.D., VIVIAN MITROPOULOU, M.A., ANTONIA NEW, M.D., MARIANNE GOODMAN, M.D., and LARRY J. SIEVER, M.D., HAROLD W. KOENIGSBERGSearch for more papers by this author, M.D., PHILIP D. HARVEYSearch for more papers by this author, Ph.D., VIVIAN MITROPOULOUSearch for more papers by this author, M.A., ANTONIA NEWSearch for more papers by this author, M.D., MARIANNE GOODMANSearch for more papers by this author, M.D., and LARRY J. SIEVERSearch for more papers by this author, M.D., New York, N.Y.Published Online:1 Feb 2003https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.2.395AboutSectionsView EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail To the Editor: Dr. Links and colleagues report on a study of the correlation of the Affective Lability Scale with a single-item visual analogue scale of affective experience. They note that in their group of 21 outpatients, scores on this single item did not correlate with scores on the scale in a manner that they consider consistent with the validity of the Affective Lability Scale. We appreciate their interest in our scale and share their interest in validation of the Affective Lability Scale in a range of suitable populations. Unfortunately, their study is methodologically weak in at least three areas and yields results that are not germane to our study. There are several major limitations to the study, as well as a number of more minor ones.First, the Affective Lability Scale was designed to study populations with unstable affect. There are no data presented regarding the diagnoses of the small group of subjects reported on and no indication that they come from populations theoretically manifesting affective lability. Our study had 152 patients who were carefully diagnosed with a procedure that included two separate structured diagnostic interviews (the Structured Interview for the Diagnosis of Personality Disorders and the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia) of high reliability. Thus, we compared groups of patients with clear DSM-IV diagnoses of conditions with putative unstable affect (borderline personality disorder) to patients with other personality disorder diagnoses in which stable affect is expected. Thus, the patients of Dr. Link and colleagues are not demonstrated to be in any way similar to ours, and the lack of detail regarding their diagnoses, regardless of reliability, renders their comparison with our study group problematic.Second, the authors used a single item to measure affective experience. They present no data to suggest that this item has suitable test-retest reliability in their group. Both the Affective Lability Scale and the Affect Intensity Measure, the two scales used in our study, have well-documented test-retest reliability (0.84 for the global Affective Lability Scale and 0.81 for the Affect Intensity Measure). With no evidence of test-retest reliability, the most parsimonious explanation of variance over time in scores in patients with stable symptoms is error variance. Error variance due to test-retest unreliability, by definition, cannot correlate with systematic variance associated with reliable scores. Thus, the lack of correlation between an index of error variance (affective lability) and reliable scores on the Affective Lability Scale is completely expected and cannot address the issue of the scale’s validity.Third, there are multiple dimensions of affect, including intensity, instability, and polarity. Our study examined correlations between intensity and instability across polarity of affective experience. Dr. Links and colleagues ignore this well-replicated factor structure and present a single index of affective experience collapsing across three known orthogonal dimensions. They provide no data regarding the convergent and discriminant validity of their index, giving no idea as to what the other correlates of this single-item scale would be. Thus, we have no idea what their scale is measuring.In conclusion, Dr. Links and colleagues, who suggest that their data call into question the validity of the Affective Lability Scale, overinterpret their data. We stand by our results and welcome more methodologically relevant tests of the Affective Lability Scale and other measures of affective instability.Reprints are not available; however, Letters to the Editor can be downloaded at http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org. FiguresReferencesCited byDetailsCited byNone Volume 160Issue 2 February 2003Pages 395-395 Metrics History Published online 1 February 2003 Published in print 1 February 2003" @default.
• W2161616531 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2161616531 creator A5009515693 @default.
• W2161616531 creator A5029742430 @default.
• W2161616531 creator A5031612485 @default.
• W2161616531 creator A5058132585 @default.
• W2161616531 creator A5061329721 @default.
• W2161616531 creator A5073425261 @default.
• W2161616531 date "2003-02-01" @default.
• W2161616531 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2161616531 title "Dr. Koenigsberg and Colleagues Reply" @default.
• W2161616531 doi "https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.2.395" @default.
• W2161616531 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W2161616531 type Work @default.
• W2161616531 sameAs 2161616531 @default.
• W2161616531 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2161616531 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2161616531 hasAuthorship W2161616531A5009515693 @default.
• W2161616531 hasAuthorship W2161616531A5029742430 @default.
• W2161616531 hasAuthorship W2161616531A5031612485 @default.
• W2161616531 hasAuthorship W2161616531A5058132585 @default.
• W2161616531 hasAuthorship W2161616531A5061329721 @default.
• W2161616531 hasAuthorship W2161616531A5073425261 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConcept C149997192 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConcept C2778755073 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConcept C58640448 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConceptScore W2161616531C11171543 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConceptScore W2161616531C149997192 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConceptScore W2161616531C15744967 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConceptScore W2161616531C185592680 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConceptScore W2161616531C205649164 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConceptScore W2161616531C2778755073 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConceptScore W2161616531C55493867 @default.
• W2161616531 hasConceptScore W2161616531C58640448 @default.
• W2161616531 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2161616531 hasLocation W21616165311 @default.
• W2161616531 hasOpenAccess W2161616531 @default.
• W2161616531 hasPrimaryLocation W21616165311 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W1554462378 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W1884192967 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W2009693652 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W2036405309 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W2315978648 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W2383437318 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W2534262597 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W2770226821 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W3140514088 @default.
• W2161616531 hasRelatedWork W340733329 @default.
• W2161616531 hasVolume "160" @default.
• W2161616531 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2161616531 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2161616531 magId "2161616531" @default.
• W2161616531 workType "article" @default.