SWAP-200

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications.
Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since March 2008.
This article may not meet the general notability guideline or one of the following specific guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
This article has been tagged since March 2008.

The Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 (SWAP-200) is a research psychometric instrument that consists of a clinician-report Q-sort for assessing personality and personality pathology. An experienced clinician (usually a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist) rank-orders 200 test items into categories from non-descriptive to highly descriptive of the patient. Thus, the SWAP-200 yields a 0-7 score for each of 200 items derived from sources such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders personality disorder criteria, clinical and empirical literature on personality pathology, research on normal traits and psychological health, and previous research with pilot versions of the instrument. The item set was developed over several years using standard psychometric methods. Research supports the reliability and validity of the SWAP-200 in predicting objective indicators of personality dysfunction such as suicide attempts, history of psychiatric hospitalizations, Global Assessment of Functioning scores, clinician diagnoses, and developmental and history variables. A newer version of the SWAP-200, called the SWAP-II, has recently been developed and has begun to displace the SWAP-200 in research applications. The SWAP-200 has an adolescent version, the SWAP-A, for the assessment of personality and psychopathology in psychiatric and clinical psychological research on adolescents.

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  • Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999a). Revising and assessing Axis II, part 1: Developing a clinically and empirically valid assessment method. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 258-272.
  • Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999b). Revising and assessing Axis II, part 2: Toward an empirically based and clinically useful classification of personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 273-285.
  • Wood JM, Garb HN, Nezworski MT, Koren D. (2007). The Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 as a basis for modifying DSM personality disorder categories. J Abnorm Psychol. 116(4):823-36.
  • Mullins-Sweatt S, Widiger TA. (200&). The Shedler and Westen Assessment Procedure from the perspective of general personality structure. J Abnorm Psychol. 116(3):618-23.
  • Bradley R, Hilsenroth M, Guarnaccia C, Westen D. (2007). Relationship between clinician assessment and self-assessment of personality disorders using the SWAP-200 and PAI. Psychol Assess. 19(2):225-9.
  • Loffler-Stastka H, Ponocny-Seliger E, Fischer-Kern M, Rossler-Schulein H, Leithner-Dziubas K, Schuster P. (2007). Validation of the SWAP-200 for diagnosing psychostructural organization in personality disorders. Psychopathology. 40(1):35-46.
  • Marin-Avellan LE, McGauley G, Campbell C, Fonagy P. (2005). Using the SWAP-200 in a personality-disordered forensic population: is it valid, reliable and useful? Crim Behav Ment Health. 15(1):28-45.
  • Lingiardi V, Shedler J, Gazzillo F. (2006). Assessing personality change in psychotherapy with the SWAP-200: a case study. J Pers Assess. 86(1):23-32.