Tradition versus empiricism in the current DSM-5 proposal for revising the classification of personality disorders

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Livesley
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Dsm 5

scholarly journals The role of identity in the DSM-5 classification of personality disorders

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Schmeck ◽  
Susanne Schlüter-Müller ◽  
Pamela A Foelsch ◽  
Stephan Doering
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Dsm 5

scholarly journals The Utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 Traits for Differentiating Patients With Personality Disorders From Other Clinical Groups

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rute Pires ◽  
Joana Henriques-Calado ◽  
Ana Sousa Ferreira ◽  
Bo Bach ◽  
Marco Paulino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Negative Affectivity ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Composite Score ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Emotional Lability ◽  
Global Severity Index ◽  
Dsm 5

The ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders delineates five trait domain qualifiers (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia), whereas the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders also delineates a separate domain of psychoticism. These six combined traits not only characterize individual stylistic features, but also the severity of their maladaptive expressions. It was, therefore, the aim of this study to investigate the utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 trait domains to differentiate patients with personality disorders (PD) from patients with other mental disorders (non-PD). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+M) was administered to a sample of patients diagnosed with a personality disorder (N = 124, Mage = 42.21, 42.7% females) along with a sample of patients diagnosed with other mental disorders (N = 335, Mage = 44.83, 46.6% females). Group differences were explored using the independent sample t test or the Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples, and discriminant factor analysis was used to maximize group differences for each trait domain and facet score. The PD group showed significantly higher scores for the total PID5BF+M composite score, for the trait domains of negative affectivity, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition and for the trait facets of emotional lability, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and impulsivity. The trait domains of disinhibition, negative affectivity, and antagonism/dissociality as well as the trait facets of impulsivity, deceitfulness, emotional lability, and manipulativeness were the best discriminators between PD and non-PD patients. The global PID5BF+M composite score was also one of the best discriminators supporting its potential as a global severity index for detecting personality dysfunction. Finally, high scores in three or more of the 18 PID5BF+M facets suggested the possible presence of a PD diagnosis. Despite some limitations, our findings suggest that the ICD-11 and DSM-5 traits have the potential to specifically describe the stylistic features that characterize individuals with PD, including the severity of their maladaptive expressions.

scholarly journals International Assessment of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Traits: Toward a Common Nosology in DSM-5.1

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Bach ◽  
André Kerber ◽  
Anton Aluja ◽  
Tim Bastiaens ◽  
Jared W Keeley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Negative Affectivity ◽  
Patient Report ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Reliable Assessment ◽  
Supplemental Appendix ◽  
International Assessment ◽  
Report Measure ◽  
The U.S

Introduction: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders (PD) are largely commensurate, and when combined, they delineate six trait domains: Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism/Dissociality, Disinhibition, Anankastia, and Psychoticism. Objective: The present study evaluated the international validity of abrief 36-item patient-report measure that portrays all six domains simultaneously including 18 primary subfacets. Methods: We developed and employed a modified version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+). A total number of 16,327 individuals were included, of which 2,347 were patients. The expected 6-factor structure of facets was initially investigated insamples from Denmark (n = 584), Germany (n = 1,271), and the U.S. (n = 605), and was subsequently replicated in both patient- and community samples from Italy, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, U.S., and Brazil. Associations with interview-rated DSM-5 PD categories were also investigated. Results: Findings generally supported the empirical soundness andinternational robustness of the six domains including meaningful associations with familiar interviewratedPD types. Conclusions: The modified PID5BF+ may be employed internationally by clinicians and researchers for brief and reliable assessment of the six combined DSM-5 and ICD-11 domains, including 18 primary subfacets. This six-domain framework may inform a future nosology for DSM-5.1 that is more reasonably aligned with the authoritative ICD-11 codes than the current DSM-5 AMPD model. The 36-item modified PID5BF+ scoring key is provided in supplemental Appendix A.

scholarly journals A perspective on the current issues in the DSM-5 classification of personality disorders

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-132 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
General Definition ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
New Criteria ◽  
Better Than

David Kupfer chaired the DSM-5 Task Force, and Andrew Skodol the working group, on personality disorders. Various initial propositions were posted on the Internet in 2010 for comment and discussion: new general definition, new criteria, new diagnostic procedures, reduction in the number of categories, and dimensional representation. Following numerous criticisms, the Task Force's final decisions were made public on December 1, 2012. Personality disorders now figure alongside other mental disorders, because of the deletion of Axis II. The methodology concerning personality traits is in a third section to promote new studies. The new proposed hybrid system has not, to date, proven better than the categories of the DSM-IV. These various decisions are commented upon.

Comparison of Alcohol Use Disorders in DSM and ICD

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-153
Author(s):  
Jessica W. M. Wong ◽  
Friedrich M. Wurst ◽  
Ulrich W. Preuss
Keyword(s):  
Alcohol Use Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Historical Developments

Abstract. Introduction: With advances in medicine, our understanding of diseases has deepened and diagnostic criteria have evolved. Currently, the most frequently used diagnostic systems are the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) and the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) to diagnose alcohol-related disorders. Results: In this narrative review, we follow the historical developments in ICD and DSM with their corresponding milestones reflecting the scientific research and medical considerations of their time. The current diagnostic concepts of DSM-5 and ICD-11 and their development are presented. Lastly, we compare these two diagnostic systems and evaluate their practicability in clinical use.

Angststörungen – von der ICD-10 zur ICD-11

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Timo D. Vloet ◽  
Marcel Romanos
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
International Classification ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Icd 10

Zusammenfassung. Hintergrund: Nach 12 Jahren Entwicklung wird die 11. Version der International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) im Januar 2022 in Kraft treten. Methodik: Im Rahmen eines selektiven Übersichtsartikels werden die Veränderungen im Hinblick auf die Klassifikation von Angststörungen von der ICD-10 zur ICD-11 zusammenfassend dargestellt. Ergebnis: Die diagnostischen Kriterien der generalisierten Angststörung, Agoraphobie und spezifischen Phobien werden angepasst. Die ICD-11 wird auf Basis einer Lebenszeitachse neu organisiert, sodass die kindesaltersspezifischen Kategorien der ICD-10 aufgelöst werden. Die Trennungsangststörung und der selektive Mutismus werden damit den „regulären“ Angststörungen zugeordnet und können zukünftig auch im Erwachsenenalter diagnostiziert werden. Neu ist ebenso, dass verschiedene Symptomdimensionen der Angst ohne kategoriale Diagnose verschlüsselt werden können. Diskussion: Die Veränderungen im Bereich der Angsterkrankungen umfassen verschiedene Aspekte und sind in der Gesamtschau nicht unerheblich. Positiv zu bewerten ist die Einführung einer Lebenszeitachse und Parallelisierung mit dem Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Schlussfolgerungen: Die entwicklungsbezogene Neuorganisation in der ICD-11 wird auch eine verstärkte längsschnittliche Betrachtung von Angststörungen in der Klinik sowie Forschung zur Folge haben. Damit rückt insbesondere die Präventionsforschung weiter in den Fokus.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document