E. Fernández-Jiménez

PW01-132 - Psychometric analysis of Kernberg's personality inventory (IPO) reduced

Antecedents Kernbergs classification of personality disorders (1987) differentiates psychic organization according to the severity: neurotic, borderline and psychotic. Lenzenweger et al. (2001) used a reduced version of IPO with 57 items developed by Kernberg and Clarkin (1995). Objectives and hypothesis IPO was applied in a sample of patients and a control group. We expected to find an adequate reliability and validity of the inventory. Scales adequately distinguish content borderline, neurotic and psychotic. Method Participants: 288 subjects (64.9% women), 116 patients attended to private clinical practice from February 2007 to September 2009. 172 control subjects matched by sex, social class and sincerity (EPI). Transversal design, a measure collective in the comparison group and individual in patients ones. A group of patients was selected for the retest (n = 88). Instruments. We applied IPO, the BPRS, MCMI-II and MIPS. Diagnoses according to DSM-IV-TR. Results Internal consistency (Cronbach) was adequate for the three scales: .83; .90 and .89. The testretest reliability was correct for a mean interval of 44 days (.78; .81; .78). The validity analyses differed between diagnostic groups in Axis I (p .05). No differences in BPRS with scale of borderline, but yes with neurotic and psychotic ones. The MCMI-II was properly differentiated by the three scales of the IPO. Conclusions The IPO is an useful scale with reliability and validity. The main drawback concerns certain aspects of the borderline scale.

P02-139 - Effect of group therapy of social skills on the referencial thinking

Antecedents In previous works we used the REF scale of referential thinking as criterion of therapeutic evolution (Benitez-Hernandez et al., 2006; Rodriguez-Testal et al., 2009). Objectives and hypotheses We designed a group therapy of social skills for monitoring and modification of the referential thinking. We predict a decrease of referential thinking (frequency and intensity) both in pretest and posttest measures for each session, as in the progress of the all sessions as a whole. Methods Participants: 5 women from 24 to 38 years old with the diagnoses: Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia and history of Sexual Abuse; generalized Social Phobia; Avoidance Personality Disorder; Bipolar I Disorder; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Avoidance Personality Disorder. Its employed a longitudinal design (brief time-series) of REF measurement (frequency and intensity) at a weekly interval. C Young (p Results #1: frequency-posttest (p=.01). #2: intensity-pretest (p =.01); intensity-posttest, C =.663 (p #3: intensity-pretest, C =.772 (p #4: frequency-pretest, C =.695 (p #5: frequency-pretest and frequency-posttest (p>.01). Conclusions Preliminary analysis indicates an improvement of referential thinking in the frequency and intensity both intra and inter-sessions. More therapy sessions are needed to reflect a change statistically significant.

P02-140 - The REF scale: a good indicator to differentiate the two subtypes of paranoia “Bad Me” and “Poor Me”?

Previously (Rodriguez-Testal et al ., 2001) we analysed the multidimensionality of Referential Thinking Scale, obtaining similar results to original research of Lenzenweger et al. (1997) but warning about the construction of subscales. Objectives In this study we intended to analyse if the REF Scale is a good indicator to differentiate the two subtypes of paranoia “Bad Me” and “Poor Me” (Trower & Chadwick, 1995). Methods Participants: We analyzed data from a different sample of previous studies with 326 participants (64.11% women, mean age 30.8, SD = 10.84), of whom 212 were patients. Design, materials and procedure: We used the REF-scale (Lenzenweger et al ., 1997) adapted to Spanish language, of which we deleted two items because of psychometric criteria, resulting 32 dichotomic items. We used SPSS 15.0 to conduct a principal-components factor analysis with a varimax and oblimin rotation, retaining two factors. Results Two factors explained 31.32% of the variance (rotated solution). We interpreted factor through factor loadings higher than .42. Factor 1 accounted for 18.28% of the variance and its associated with referential laughter, commentaries and guilt. Factor 2 accounted for 13.05% of the variance and its associated with referential concerns related to the media. Conclusions Since the inter-factor correlation is moderate (.44) and there are no relevant clinical differences about the content between the two factors, the REF scale is a one-dimensional measure. Therefore, two big factors don’t emerge from the REF scale related to referential concerns about laughter-commentaries and guilt that correspond to “Poor Me” and “Bad Me”, respectively.