Relating DSM-5 section III personality traits to section II personality disorder diagnoses

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Morey ◽  
K. T. Benson ◽  
A. E. Skodol
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Work Group ◽  
Taxonomic Structure ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Dsm Iv

BackgroundThe DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group formulated a hybrid dimensional/categorical model that represented personality disorders as combinations of core impairments in personality functioning with specific configurations of problematic personality traits. Specific clusters of traits were selected to serve as indicators for six DSM categorical diagnoses to be retained in this system – antisocial, avoidant, borderline, narcissistic, obsessive–compulsive and schizotypal personality disorders. The goal of the current study was to describe the empirical relationships between the DSM-5 section III pathological traits and DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II personality disorder diagnoses.MethodData were obtained from a sample of 337 clinicians, each of whom rated one of his or her patients on all aspects of the DSM-IV and DSM-5 proposed alternative model. Regression models were constructed to examine trait–disorder relationships, and the incremental validity of core personality dysfunctions (i.e. criterion A features for each disorder) was examined in combination with the specified trait clusters.ResultsFindings suggested that the trait assignments specified by the Work Group tended to be substantially associated with corresponding DSM-IV concepts, and the criterion A features provided additional diagnostic information in all but one instance.ConclusionsAlthough the DSM-5 section III alternative model provided a substantially different taxonomic structure for personality disorders, the associations between this new approach and the traditional personality disorder concepts in DSM-5 section II make it possible to render traditional personality disorder concepts using alternative model traits in combination with core impairments in personality functioning.

Assessment of Pathological Traits in DSM-5 Personality Disorders By the DAPP-BQ: How Do These Traits Relate to the Six Personality Disorder Types of the Alternative Model?

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Berghuis ◽  
Theo J. M. Ingenhoven ◽  
Paul T. van der Heijden ◽  
Gina M. P. Rossi ◽  
Chris K. W. Schotte
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Dimensional Assessment

The six personality disorder (PD) types in DSM-5 section III are intended to resemble their DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II PD counterparts, but are now described by the level of personality functioning (criterion A) and an assigned trait profile (criterion B). However, concerns have been raised about the validity of these PD types. The present study examined the continuity between the DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II PDs and the corresponding trait profiles of the six DSM-5 section III PDs in a sample of 350 Dutch psychiatric patients. Facets of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology—Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ) were presumed as representations (proxies) of the DSM-5 section III traits. Correlational patterns between the DAPP-BQ and the six PDs were consistent with previous research between DAPP-BQ and DSM-IV PDs. Moreover, DAPP-BQ proxies were able to predict the six selected PDs. However, the assigned trait profile for each PD didn't fully match the corresponding PD.

Personality Disorders in the DSM-5: Proposed Revisions and Critiques

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Good
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Categorical Model ◽  
Dsm Iv

This article discusses the Personality and Personality Disorder Work Group's proposed changes for Personality Disorders in the DSM-5: (a) adoption of a hybrid dimensional-categorical model; (b) utilization of 6 personality disorder types instead of the previous 10 personality disorders; (c) addition of personality traits and facets to define personality disorders; (d) addition of a rating scale for levels of personality functioning; (e) revised diagnostic criteria; and (f) the collapsing of Axes I, II, and III. Also discussed are ways in which the DSM-5 proposals are reactions to criticisms of the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) and criticisms of the proposed changes.

DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder Dysfunctional Personality Traits as Predictors of Self-Reported Aggression in an Italian Sample of Consecutively Admitted, Personality-Disordered Psychotherapy Patients

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Somma ◽  
Robert F. Krueger ◽  
Kristian E. Markon ◽  
Valentina B. M. Alajmo ◽  
Emanuela Arlotta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Physical Aggression ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Personality Disordered

In order to assess the relationships between DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) maladaptive personality traits and self-reports of aggression, 508 Italian adult participants who met at least one DSM-IV Axis II/DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) diagnosis were administered the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ). Analysis results showed that multiple regression results, PID-5 Hostility, Callousness, and Risk Taking trait scale scores explained a large amount of variance in AQ Physical Aggression (PA) scores. Moreover, PID-5 Hostility, Callousness, and Risk Taking explained more than 20% of the variance in the AQ Physical Aggression scale scores that was left unexplained by selected continuously scored DSM-IV Axis II/ DSM-5 Section II PDs, whereas SCID-II Paranoid, Narcissistic, Borderline, and Antisocial PDs added only 4% of variance to the amount of variance in AQ Physical Aggression scores that was already explained by the PID-5 trait scale scores.

Examining the Structure and Validity of Self-Report Measures of DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Criterion A

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Chloe F. Bliton ◽  
Michael J. Roche ◽  
Aaron L. Pincus ◽  
David Dueber
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Measurement Development ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) operationalizes Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. Despite progress in LPFS measurement development and validation, there is a lack of research, and some disagreement, concerning structural, convergent, and incremental validity of LPFS self-report measures. The present study aimed to compare the LPFS Self-Report, LPFS Self-Report of Criterion A, and LPFS Brief Form. Internal structure was assessed through principal component analyses, factor analyses, and bifactor analyses of unidimensionality. Associations with both pathological and basic personality characteristics among the LPFS measures were explored. Incremental validity of LPFS severity in predicting pathological personality outcomes controlling for basic personality traits, and the reverse, were examined. Results suggest a unidimensional structure robustly associated with other pathological personality assessments. LPFS severity and basic personality traits mutually offered unique explanatory power. We discuss the implications of assessing personality pathology using LPFS self-report measures.

The latent structure of personality functioning: Investigating criterion a from the alternative model for personality disorders in DSM–5.

2015 ◽  
Vol 124 (3) ◽  
pp. 532-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Zimmermann ◽  
Jan R. Böhnke ◽  
Rhea Eschstruth ◽  
Alessa Mathews ◽  
Kristin Wenzel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Latent Structure ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A

Do DSM-5 Section II personality disorders and Section III personality trait domains reflect the same genetic and environmental risk factors?

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (12) ◽  
pp. 2205-2215 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Reichborn-Kjennerud ◽  
R. F. Krueger ◽  
E. Ystrom ◽  
F. A. Torvik ◽  
T. H. Rosenström ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Environmental Risk ◽  
Personality Trait ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Environmental Risk Factors ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Dsm Iv

BackgroundDSM-5 includes two conceptualizations of personality disorders (PDs). The classification in Section II is identical to the one found in DSM-IV, and includes 10 categorical PDs. The Alternative Model (Section III) includes criteria for dimensional measures of maladaptive personality traits organized into five domains. The degree to which the two conceptualizations reflect the same etiological factors is not known.MethodsWe use data from a large population-based sample of adult twins from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health Twin Panel on interview-based DSM-IV PDs and a short self-report inventory that indexes the five domains of the DSM-5 Alternative Model plus a domain explicitly targeting compulsivity. Schizotypal, Paranoid, Antisocial, Borderline, Avoidant, and Obsessive-compulsive PDs were assessed at the same time as the maladaptive personality traits and 10 years previously. Schizoid, Histrionic, Narcissistic, and Dependent PDs were only assessed at the first interview. Biometric models were used to estimate overlap in genetic and environmental risk factors.ResultsWhen measured concurrently, there was 100% genetic overlap between the maladaptive trait domains and Paranoid, Schizotypal, Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs. For OCPD, 43% of the genetic variance was shared with the domains. Genetic correlations between the individual domains and PDs ranged from +0.21 to +0.91.ConclusionThe pathological personality trait domains, which are part of the Alternative Model for classification of PDs in DSM-5 Section III, appears to tap, at an aggregate level, the same genetic risk factors as the DSM-5 Section II classification for most of the PDs.

Application of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale by Lay Raters

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 709-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Morey
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Clinical Experience ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Undergraduate College Students ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Considerable Experience

One concern that has been expressed with the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) presented in DSM-5 is that the description of characteristic impairments in personality function uses concepts requiring considerable experience and clinical inference to apply. To examine this question, the individual indicators included in the AMPD's Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) that describes these core impairments were abstracted as individual items, and then rated on a target acquaintance by 194 undergraduate college students with minimal training in personality disorder and no training in the AMPD. Results indicated that the LPFS indicators were highly internally consistent as rated in this sample, and that the degree of discrimination between groups corresponded very well with the putative level of severity represented for each indicator in the LPFS. These findings support the contention that using the LPFS might not require any particular clinical experience or training.

Age-Neutrality of a Brief Assessment of the Section III Alternative Model for Personality Disorders in Older Adults

Assessment ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 310-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inge Debast ◽  
Gina Rossi ◽  
S. P. J. van Alphen
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Community Sample ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
The Impact

The alternative model for personality disorders in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM-5) is considered an important step toward a possibly better conceptualization of personality pathology in older adulthood, by the introduction of levels of personality functioning (Criterion A) and trait dimensions (Criterion B). Our main aim was to examine age-neutrality of the Short Form of the Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP-SF; Criterion A) and Personality Inventory for DSM-5–Brief Form (PID-5-BF; Criterion B). Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses and more specifically the impact on scale level through differential test functioning (DTF) analyses made clear that the SIPP-SF was more age-neutral (6% DIF, only one of four domains showed DTF) than the PID-5-BF (25% DIF, all four tested domains had DTF) in a community sample of older and younger adults. Age differences in convergent validity also point in the direction of differences in underlying constructs. Concurrent and criterion validity in geriatric psychiatry inpatients suggest that both the SIPP-SF scales measuring levels of personality functioning (especially self-functioning) and the PID-5-BF might be useful screening measures in older adults despite age-neutrality not being confirmed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document