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.

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.

scholarly journals The Structure of Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors for DSM-IV Personality Disorders

2008 ◽  
Vol 65 (12) ◽  
pp. 1438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth S. Kendler ◽  
Steven H. Aggen ◽  
Nikolai Czajkowski ◽  
Espen Røysamb ◽  
Kristian Tambs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Environmental Risk ◽  
Environmental Risk Factors ◽  
Dsm Iv

Dimensional representations of DSM-IV Cluster A personality disorders in a population-based sample of Norwegian twins: a multivariate study

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. 1583-1591 ◽  
Author(s):  
KENNETH S. KENDLER ◽  
NIKOLAI CZAJKOWSKI ◽  
KRISTIAN TAMBS ◽  
SVENN TORGERSEN ◽  
STEVEN H. AGGEN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Environmental Risk ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Environmental Risk Factors ◽  
Twin Model ◽  
Limited Power ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Cluster A

Background. The ‘odd’ or ‘Cluster A’ personality disorders (PDs) – paranoid, schizoid and schizotypal PDs – were created in DSM-III with little empirical foundation. We have examined the relationship between the genetic and environmental risk factors for dimensional representations of these three personality disorders.Method. These personality disorders were assessed using the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP-IV) in 1386 young adult twin pairs from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health Twin Panel. Using Mx, a single-factor independent pathway twin model was fitted to the number of endorsed criteria for the three disorders.Results. The best-fit model included genetic and unique environmental common factors and genetic and unique environmental effects specific to each personality disorder. Total heritability was modest for these personality disorders and ranged from 21% to 28%. Loadings on the common genetic and unique environmental factors were substantially higher for schizotypal than for paranoid or schizoid PD. The proportion of genetic liability shared with all Cluster A disorders was estimated at 100, 43 and 26% respectively for schizotypal, paranoid and schizoid PDs.Conclusion. In support of the validity of the Cluster A construct, dimensional representations of schizotypal, paranoid and schizoid PD are all modestly heritable and share a portion of their genetic and environmental risk factors. No evidence was found for shared environmental or sex effects for these PDs. Schizotypal PD most closely reflects the genetic and environmental liability common to all three Cluster A disorders. These results should be interpreted in the context of the limited power of this sample.

scholarly journals The structure of genetic and environmental risk factors for fears and phobias

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (11) ◽  
pp. 2375-2384 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. K. Loken ◽  
J. M. Hettema ◽  
S. H. Aggen ◽  
K. S. Kendler
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Environmental Risk ◽  
Genetic Factors ◽  
Environmental Risk Factors ◽  
Multivariate Statistical ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
Blood Injection ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Phobic Stimuli

BackgroundAlthough prior genetic studies of interview-assessed fears and phobias have shown that genetic factors predispose individuals to fears and phobias, they have been restricted to the DSM-III to DSM-IV aggregated subtypes of phobias rather than to individual fearful and phobic stimuli.MethodWe examined the lifetime history of fears and/or phobias in response to 21 individual phobic stimuli in 4067 personally interviewed twins from same-sex pairs from the Virginia Adult Twin Study of Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Disorders (VATSPSUD). We performed multivariate statistical analyses using Mx and Mplus.ResultsThe best-fitting model for the 21 phobic stimuli included four genetic factors (agora-social-acrophobia, animal phobia, blood-injection-illness phobia and claustrophobia) and three environmental factors (agora-social-hospital phobia, animal phobia, and situational phobia).ConclusionsThis study provides the first view of the architecture of genetic and environmental risk factors for phobic disorders and their subtypes. The genetic factors of the phobias support the DSM-IV and DSM-5 constructs of animal and blood-injection-injury phobias but do not support the separation of agoraphobia from social phobia. The results also do not show a coherent genetic factor for the DSM-IV and DSM-5 situational phobia. Finally, the patterns of co-morbidity across individual fears and phobias produced by genetic and environmental influences differ appreciably.

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.

An Empirical Evaluation of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders in Later Life

2020 ◽  
pp. 009141502098076
Author(s):  
Lisa E. Stone ◽  
Daniel L. Segal
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Empirical Evaluation ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Pathological Personality Traits

Personality disorders (PDs) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM-5) are conceptualized as distinct clinical syndromes. However, debate persists about the clinical utility of this categorical model, with many researchers supporting a dimensional model that focuses on pathological personality traits and personality dysfunction. This model was published in Section III of DSM-5 and named the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). This study evaluated the AMPD by examining relationships between traits and dysfunction with traditional categorical PD constructs among older adults. Older adults ( N = 202) completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5, Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report, and Coolidge Axis II Inventory. Results indicated that pathological personality traits do not relate to categorical PDs in directions predicted by the AMPD. Personality functioning related to categorical PDs in expected theoretical patterns according to the AMPD but lacked incremental validity above pathological personality traits. An implication of these findings is that the AMPD does not fully resolve the age-related issues with the traditional categorical PD model.

Undue influence of weight and shape: is it distinct from body dissatisfaction and concern about weight and shape?

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 819-828 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. D. Wade ◽  
G. Zhu ◽  
N. G. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Eating Disorders ◽  
Body Dissatisfaction ◽  
Environmental Risk ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Environmental Risk Factors ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
Diagnostic Criterion

BackgroundThree cognitive constructs are risk factors for eating disorders: undue influence of weight and shape, concern about weight and shape, and body dissatisfaction (BD). Undue influence, a diagnostic criterion for eating disorders, is postulated to be closely associated with self-esteem whereas BD is postulated to be closely associated with body mass index (BMI). We understand less about the relationships with concern about weight and shape. The aim of the current investigation was examine the degree of overlap across these five phenotypes in terms of latent genetic and environmental risk factors in order to draw some conclusions about the similarities and differences across the three cognitive variables.MethodA sample of female Australian twins (n=1056, including 348 complete pairs), mean age 35 years (s.d.=2.11, range 28–40), completed a semi-structured interview about eating pathology and self-report questionnaires. An independent pathways model was used to investigate the overlap of genetic and environmental risk factors for the five phenotypes.ResultsIn terms of variance that was not shared with other phenotypes, self-esteem emerged as being separate, with 100% of its variance unshared with the other phenotypes, followed by undue influence (51%) and then concern (34%), BD (28%) and BMI (32%).ConclusionsIn terms of shared genetic risk, undue influence and concern were more closely related than BD, whereas BMI and BD were found to share common sources of risk. With respect to environmental risk factors, concern, BMI and BD were more closely related to each other than to undue influence.

Assessment of Personality Disorders and Related Traits: Bridging DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5

2012 ◽  
pp. 107-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller ◽  
Lauren R. Few ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Prototype Matching ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Assessment Techniques ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
The Many ◽  
Diagnostic Criterion

The assessment of personality disorders and related traits is at an important crossroads with the imminent release of DSM-5. In this chapter we first review assessment techniques and measures as they pertain to the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and pathological personality traits, focusing in particular on the many self-report inventories and semistructured interviews that have been developed. Second, we discuss the proposed changes to the diagnosis of personality disorder in DSM-5, which are substantial, and their ramifications for the assessment of personality disorder, including the (now abandoned) proposal to replace explicit diagnostic criterion sets with a prototype matching technique, the proposal to delete and/or shift a number of diagnoses from the personality disorders section, the provision of a new dimensional trait model of personality pathology, and the provision of new rating of impairment pertaining to self and interpersonal functioning.

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.

Genetic and environmental risk factors in males for self-report externalizing traits in mid-adolescence and criminal behavior through young adulthood

2013 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 2161-2168 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. S. Kendler ◽  
C. J. Patrick ◽  
H. Larsson ◽  
C. O. Gardner ◽  
P. Lichtenstein
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Environmental Factors ◽  
Environmental Risk ◽  
Genetic Risk ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Environmental Risk Factors ◽  
Environmental Risks ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Equation Modeling

BackgroundExternalizing traits or behaviors are typically assessed by self-report scales or criminal records. Few genetically informative studies have used both methods to determine whether they assess the same genetic or environmental risk factors.MethodWe examined 442 male Swedish twin pairs with self-reported externalizing behaviors at age 16–17 years [externalizing traits (EXT), self-reported delinquency (SRD), impulsivity (IMP), grandiosity (GRD) and callousness (CLS)] and criminal behavior (CB) from the National Suspect Registry from age 13 to 25 years. Multivariate structural equation modeling was conducted with Mx.ResultsThe best-fit model contained one genetic, one shared environmental and two non-shared environmental common factors, and variable specific genetic and non-shared environmental factors. The risk for CB was influenced substantially by both genetic (a2 = 0.48) and familial–environmental factors (c2 = 0.22). About one-third of the genetic risk for CB but all of the shared environmental risk was indexed by the self-report measures. The degree to which the individual measures reflected genetic versus familial–environmental risks for CB varied widely. GRD and CLS were correlated with CB mainly through common genetic risk factors. SRD and CB covaried largely because of shared familial–environmental factors. For EXT and IMP, observed correlations with CB resulted in about equal parts from shared genetic and shared familial–environmental factors.ConclusionsIn adolescence, measures of grandiose and callous temperament best tap the genetic liability to CB. Measures of antisocial behaviors better index familial–environmental risks for CB. A substantial proportion of the genetic risk to CB was not well reflected in any of the self-report measures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document