Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample.

Abstract Background: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF) is a 25-item measuring tool evaluating maladaptive personality traits for the diagnosis of personality disorders(PDs). As a promising scale, its impressive psychometric properties have been verified in some countries, however, there have no studies about the utility of PID-5-BF in Chinese settings. The current study aimed to explore the maladaptive personality factor model which was culturally adapted in China and examine psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form among Chinese undergraduate students and clinical patients.Methods: 7155 undergraduate students and 451 clinical patients completed the Chinese version of PID-5-BF. 228 students were chosen randomly for test-retest reliability at a 4-week interval. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to discover the most suitable construct in Chinese, measurement invariance(MI), internal consistency, and external validity were also calculated.Results: An exploratory six-factor model was supported more suitable in both samples(Undergraduate sample: CFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.888, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.039; Clinical sample: CFI = 0.904, TLI = 0.886, RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.060), adding a new factor“Interpersonal Relationships”. Measurement invariance across non-clinical and clinical sample was established (configural, weak, strong MI, and partial strict MI). Aside from acceptable internal consistency (Undergraduate sample: alpha=0.84, MIC=0.21; Clinical sample: alpha=0.86, MIC=0.19) and test-retest reliability(0.73), the association with 220-item PID-5 was significant(r = 0.93, p < 0.01), and six PDs measured by Personality diagnostic questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+) were correlated with expected domains of PID-5-BF.Conclusions: The PID-5-BF is a convenient and useful screening tool for personality disorders with a novel six-factor model in Chinese settings, with the main difference for the Negative Affect domain.

Download Full-text

Continuity Between DSM–5 Section II and III Personality Disorders in a Dutch Clinical Sample

Journal of Personality Assessment ◽

10.1080/00223891.2018.1467427 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 101 (3) ◽

pp. 274-283 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Irene M. J. Orbons ◽

Gina Rossi ◽

Roel Verheul ◽

Mirjam J. A. Schoutrop ◽

Jan L. L. Derksen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorders ◽

Clinical Sample ◽

Dsm 5

Download Full-text

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form in Undergraduate Students and Clinical Patients

10.21203/rs.3.rs-45917/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Panwen Zhang ◽

Zirong Ouyang ◽

Shulin Fang ◽

Jiayue He ◽

Lejia Fan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Factor Analysis ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Personality Disorders ◽

Measurement Invariance ◽

Undergraduate Students ◽

Internal Consistency ◽

Clinical Sample ◽

Chinese Version ◽

Dsm 5 ◽

Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Background: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF) is a 25-item measuring tool evaluating maladaptive personality traits for diagnosis of personality disorders(PDs). As a promising scale, its impressive psychometric properties has been verified in some countries, however, there has no studies about the utility of PID-5-BF in Chinese settings. The current study aimed to examine cultural applicability of the Chinese version of PID-5-BF among undergraduate students and clinical patients.Methods: 7155 undergraduate students and 302 clinical patients completed the Chinese version of PID-5-BF. 228 students were chosen randomly for test-retest reliability at a 4-week interval. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to discover the most suitable construct in Chinese, measurement invariance(MI), internal consistency and external validity were also calculated. Results: An exploratory six-factor model was supported more suitable in both samples(Undergraduate sample: CFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.888, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.039; Clinical sample: CFI = 0.904, TLI = 0.886, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.063), adding a new factor“Interpersonal Relationships”. Measurement invariance across non-clinical and clinical sample was established(configural, weak, strong MI, and partial strict MI). Aside from acceptable internal consistency(Undergraduate sample: alpha=0.84, MIC=0.21; Clinical sample: alpha=0.82, MIC=0.16) and test-retest reliability(0.73), the association with 220-item PID-5 was significant(r = 0.93, p < 0.01), and six PDs measured by Personality diagnostic questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+) was correlated with expected domains of PID-5-BF. Conclusions: The Chinese version of the PID-5-BF showed satisfactory psychometric properties, which is a convenient and useful screening tool for personality disorders.

Download Full-text

The DSM’s Reconnection to Psychoanalytic Theory through the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders

Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association ◽

10.1177/0003065120903060 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 67 (6) ◽

pp. 1023-1045 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Adam P. Natoli

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorders ◽

Alternative Model ◽

Psychoanalytic Theory ◽

Diagnostic System ◽

Personality Pathology ◽

Statistical Manual ◽

Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽

Dsm 5 ◽

Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual ◽

Current Systems

Often believed to have Kraepelinian origins, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—5th Edition (DSM-5) defines personality disorders using a categorical, hierarchical taxonomic system. This system possesses many long-standing problems for clinical practice, including a large assortment of symptom combinations that contribute to problematic heterogeneity and likely impair diagnostic validity. The DSM diagnostic system was at one time heavily influenced by psychoanalytic theory (Shorter 2005). A desire for greater theoretical neutrality then encouraged a shift away from psychoanalytic theory, resulting in the problematic atheoretical model of personality pathology introduced in DSM-III (1980) and still used today. The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), introduced in DSM-5 (2013), is an attempt to reconcile many of the categorical model’s issues and directly parallels primary themes that characterize psychoanalytic models of personality. After a review of the historical development of DSM, three current systems for diagnosing personality pathology—the DSM-5’s categorical model (2013), its AMPD (2013), and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (2nd ed.; Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations 2017) are compared. The comparison illustrates how the AMPD brings psychoanalytic theory back into the DSM system and acknowledges the implications of a more psychoanalytic DSM.

Download Full-text

Predicting dropout using DSM–5 Section II personality disorders, and DSM–5 Section III personality traits, in a (day)clinical sample of personality disorders.

Personality Disorders Theory Research and Treatment ◽

10.1037/per0000429 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Han Berghuis ◽

Coen C. Bandell ◽

Robert F. Krueger

Keyword(s):

Personality Traits ◽

Personality Disorders ◽

Clinical Sample ◽

Dsm 5

Download Full-text

Normative data for PID-5 domains, facets, and personality disorder composites from a representative sample and comparison to community and clinical samples

10.31234/osf.io/b9yqa ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Josh Miller ◽

Christopher James Hopwood ◽

Leonard Simms ◽

Donald Lynam

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Personality Disorders ◽

Representative Sample ◽

Alternative Model ◽

Normative Data ◽

Clinical Sample ◽

Clinical Samples ◽

Dsm 5 ◽

Lack Of Information ◽

Sum Score

The introduction of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Model of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, APA, 2013) represented a substantive change in how personality disorders (PDs) are diagnosed. One barrier to its adoption (among several) in clinical practice, however, is a lack of information as to what constitutes an elevated score on the 25 domains and facets that comprise Criterion B. Unique sets of facets can be configured to assess any one of six PDs retained in the AMPD; each of these facets can in turn be added to create a PD sum score. In the current study, using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012), we report mean scores using this instrument that align with 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 standard deviation elevations for each of these six PDs on the basis of Krueger and colleagues (2012) representative sample, and compare these to those obtained from a community and a clinical sample. These normative data may be useful to clinicians in determining whether a client has elevated scores on pathological personality domains, facets, or PDs.

Download Full-text

Personality Disorders in the ICD-11: Spanish Validation of the PiCD and the SASPD in a Mixed Community and Clinical Sample

Assessment ◽

10.1177/1073191120936357 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 107319112093635

Author(s):

Fernando Gutiérrez ◽

Anton Aluja ◽

José Ruiz ◽

Luis F. García ◽

Miguel Gárriz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorders ◽

Clinical Sample ◽

Negative Affectivity ◽

Diagnostic System ◽

International Classification Of Diseases ◽

Factor Analyses ◽

Spanish Validation ◽

Classification Of Diseases ◽

Few Data

The International Classification of Diseases–11th revision (ICD-11) classification of personality disorders is the official diagnostic system that is used all over the world, and it has recently been renewed. However, as yet very few data are available on its performance. This study examines the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), which assesses the personality domains of the system, and the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD), which determines severity. The Spanish versions of the questionnaires were administered to a community ( n = 2,522) and a clinical sample ( n = 797). Internal consistency was adequate in the PiCD (α = .75 to .84) but less so in the SASPD (α = .64 and .73). Factor analyses suggested a unidimensional or bidimensional structure for severity, while revealing that the personality trait qualifiers are organized into four factors: negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, and a bipolar domain of disinhibition–anankastia. The mutual relationships between traits and severity were analyzed, as well as the ability of the whole system to identify clinical subjects. Although further improvements are required, the results generally support the use of the PiCD and the SASPD and help substantiate the new ICD-11 taxonomy that underlies them.

Download Full-text

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form in undergraduate students and clinical patients

10.21203/rs.3.rs-45917/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Panwen Zhang ◽

Zirong Ouyang ◽

Shulin Fang ◽

Jiayue He ◽

Lejia Fan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Factor Analysis ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Personality Disorders ◽

Measurement Invariance ◽

Undergraduate Students ◽

Internal Consistency ◽

Clinical Sample ◽

Chinese Version ◽

Dsm 5 ◽

Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Background: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF) is a 25-item measuring tool evaluating maladaptive personality traits for diagnosis of personality disorders(PDs). As a promising scale, its impressive psychometric properties has been verified in some countries, however, there has no studies about the utility of PID-5-BF in Chinese settings. The current study aimed to examine cultural applicability of the Chinese version of PID-5-BF among undergraduate students and clinical patients.Methods: 7155 undergraduate students and 451 clinical patients completed the Chinese version of PID-5-BF. 228 students were chosen randomly for test-retest reliability at a 4-week interval. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to discover the most suitable construct in Chinese, measurement invariance(MI), internal consistency and external validity were also calculated. Results: An exploratory six-factor model was supported more suitable in both samples(Undergraduate sample: CFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.888, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.039; Clinical sample: CFI = 0.904, TLI = 0.886, RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.060), adding a new factor“Interpersonal Relationships”. Measurement invariance across non-clinical and clinical sample was established(configural, weak, strong MI, and partial strict MI). Aside from acceptable internal consistency(Undergraduate sample: alpha=0.84, MIC=0.21; Clinical sample: alpha=0.86, MIC=0.19) and test-retest reliability(0.73), the association with 220-item PID-5 was significant(r = 0.93, p < 0.01), and six PDs measured by Personality diagnostic questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+) was correlated with expected domains of PID-5-BF. Conclusions: The Chinese version of the PID-5-BF showed satisfactory psychometric properties, which is a convenient and useful screening tool for personality disorders.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Diagnostic Thresholds for Criterion A in the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Journal of Personality Disorders ◽

10.1521/pedi_2019_33_455 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 1-22 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Tore Buer Christensen ◽

Benjamin Hummelen ◽

Muirne C. S. Paap ◽

Ingeborg Eikenaes ◽

Sara Germans Selvik ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorders ◽

Clinical Sample ◽

Decision Rules ◽

Personality Functioning ◽

Dsm 5 ◽

Criterion A ◽

Diagnostic Thresholds ◽

Diagnostic Threshold ◽

Diagnostic Decision ◽

Present Rule

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) was formulated to assess the presence and severity of personality disorders (PDs). Moderate impairment (Level 2) in personality functioning, as measured by the LPFS, was incorporated into the AMPD as a diagnostic threshold for PD in Criterion A of the general criteria, as well as for the “any two areas present” rule for assigning a specific PD diagnosis. This study represents the first evaluation of the diagnostic decision rules for Criterion A, in a clinical sample (N = 282). The results indicate that an overall diagnostic threshold for PDs should be used with caution because it may not identify all DSM-IV PDs. The “any two areas present” rule proved to be a reasonable alternative, although this finding should be interpreted with caution because the LPFS does not measure the disorder-specific A criteria.

Download Full-text