English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Cox, Clara, Worobec, and Grant (2012) recently presented results from a series of analyses aimed at identifying the factor structure underlying the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) personality diagnoses assessed in the large NESARC study. Cox et al. (2012) concluded that the best fitting model was one that modeled three lower-order factors (the three clusters of PDs as outlined by DSM-IV-TR), which in turn loaded on a single PD higher-order factor. Our reanalyses of the NESARC Wave 1 and Wave 2 data for personality disorder diagnoses revealed that the best fitting model was that of a general PD factor that spans each of the ten DSM-IV PD diagnoses, and our reanalyses do not support the three-cluster hierarchical structure outlined by Cox et al. (2012) and DSM-IV-TR. Finally, we note the importance of modeling the Wave 2 assessment method factor in analyses of NESARC PD data.

The Structure ofDSM-IV-TRPersonality Disorder Diagnoses in NESARC: A Reanalysis