Supplemental Material for Improving Characterization of Psychopathy Within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM–5), Alternative Model for Personality Disorders: Creation and Validation of Personality Inventory for DSM–5 Triarchic Scales

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 1023-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam P. Natoli

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.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Anthony Rodriguez-Seijas

Widiger and Hines provide a brief overview of the development of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) housed within Section 3 of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). They highlight eight issues and controversies related to the AMPD in need of resolution for improvement of both the AMPD model itself as well as the field of personality disorders more broadly. In this brief commentary, I add a ninth issue in need of attention both with respect to the AMPD but also within the field of personality disorders more broadly: 9) How is sociocultural context to be accommodated in AMPD—and more generally personality disorder—theory, research, and treatment? The historical intra-individual, deficit-based models for conceptualizing personality disorders linger in current personality disorder discourse. However, failure to appropriately consider sociocultural context that systematically predisposes wide swaths of the population to unequal access to resources and exposure to psychological stressors, which can impact the appearance of personality pathology, serves to stigmatize minoritized individuals. The personality disorder field, and the AMPD discourse, must appropriately contend with sociocultural context in its models otherwise it risks developing models with limited generalizability and which hold potential to adversely affect sexual and gender minoritized populations, among others.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidan G.C. Wright ◽  
Whitney R. Ringwald

Widiger and Hines raise a number of significant concerns with the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). This places the major class of psychiatric difficulties represented by the personality disorders in a precarious position because the model used in prior editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and currently reprinted in Section II is moribund if not dead, and with the AMPD’s significant problems their future is unclear. Although we agree that Widiger and Hines’ criticisms have merit, they are not the whole picture. We review additional relevant research that supports the contention that what differentiates personality disorders from other psychopathology is the self and interpersonal dysfunction, as Criterion A of the AMPD currently states. We emphasize the importance of drawing a distinction between the conceptual model and its operationalization. We argue that paradoxically, to save personality disorders we need to do away with them and replace them with the “interpersonal disorders”. There is strong theory, empirical research, and ethical arguments in favor of this conceptual reframing.


Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319111989711
Author(s):  
Carmen Díaz-Batanero ◽  
Antón Aluja ◽  
Pablo Sayans-Jiménez ◽  
Eva Baillés ◽  
Fermín Fernández-Calderón ◽  
...  

The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders defined in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition ( DSM-5) has recently attracted considerable interest in empirical research, with different hypotheses being proposed to explain the discordant results shown in previous research. Empirical network analysis has begun to be applied for complementing the study of psychopathological phenomena according to a new perspective. This article applies this analysis to personality facets measured in a sample of 626 patients with mental disorders and a 1,034 normative sample, using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. The results reveal five substructures partially equivalent to domains defined in the DSM-5. Discordant facets (suspiciousness, hostility, rigid perfectionism, attention seeking, and restricted affectivity) play the role of connectors between substructures. Invariance between clinical and community networks was found except for the connection between unusual beliefs and perceptual dysregulation (stronger in the clinical sample). Considering the strength centrality index, anxiousness, emotional lability, and depressivity can be highlighted for their relative importance within both clinical and normative networks.


Obiter ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charnelle van der Bijl ◽  
Letitia Pienaar

The DSM-5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published in 2013. This manual replaced and significantly revised the former DSM IV-TR, as it abolishes the Multi-Axial system that distinguished between personality and otherdisorders, which system had an impact on the disorders that were considered legally significant from those that were not. Owing to its recent publication, the DSM-5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, was not judicially considered in a criminal-law context. This article examines the role that personality disorders in the DSM-5 will play on the possible future of Criminal Law jurisprudential literature. Personality disorders are examined in the context of their classification, the definition of mental illness and pathological criminal incapacity. Possible solutions are suggested on how these mental disorders may be accommodated in the Criminal Law context.


Author(s):  
Timo D. Vloet ◽  
Marcel Romanos

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.


Author(s):  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Maryanne Edmundson

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III) is often said to have provided a significant paradigm shift in how psychopathology is diagnosed. The authors of DSM-5 have the empirical support and the opportunity to lead the field of psychiatry to a comparably bold new future in diagnosis and classification. The purpose of this chapter is to address the validity of the categorical and dimensional models for the classification and diagnosis of psychopathology. Considered in particular will be research concerning substance use disorders, mood disorders, and personality disorders. Limitations and concerns with respect to a dimensional classification of psychopathology are also considered. The chapter concludes with a recommendation for a conversion to a more quantitative, dimensional classification of psychopathology.


2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (5) ◽  
pp. 425-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Bach ◽  
Martin Sellbom ◽  
Mathias Skjernov ◽  
Erik Simonsen

Objective: The five personality disorder trait domains in the proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition are comparable in terms of Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism/Dissociality and Disinhibition. However, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model includes a separate domain of Anankastia, whereas the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition model includes an additional domain of Psychoticism. This study examined associations of International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition trait domains, simultaneously, with categorical personality disorders. Method: Psychiatric outpatients ( N = 226) were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Interview and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition trait domain scores were obtained using pertinent scoring algorithms for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Associations between categorical personality disorders and trait domains were examined using correlation and multiple regression analyses. Results: Both the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition domain models showed relevant continuity with categorical personality disorders and captured a substantial amount of their information. As expected, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model was superior in capturing obsessive–compulsive personality disorder, whereas the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition model was superior in capturing schizotypal personality disorder. Conclusion: These preliminary findings suggest that little information is ‘lost’ in a transition to trait domain models and potentially adds to narrowing the gap between Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition and the proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model. Accordingly, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition domain models may be used to delineate one another as well as features of familiar categorical personality disorder types. A preliminary category-to-domain ‘cross walk’ is provided in the article.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document