Changes in the classification of personality disorders: Comparing the DSM–5 Section II personality disorder model to the alternative model for personality disorders using structured clinical interviews.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura C. Weekers ◽  
Joost Hutsebaut ◽  
Johannes Zimmermann ◽  
Jan H. Kamphuis
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Clinical Interviews ◽  
Dsm 5

scholarly journals Why we need to take personality disorder out of the doghouse

2019 ◽  
Vol 216 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Tyrer
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Interpersonal Relationships ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Dsm 5

SummaryThe diagnosis of personality disorder is sometimes tolerated but often reviled as a label to attach to people we do not like. This is hardly surprising when we consider that problems in interpersonal relationships constitute the main feature of the disorder. But we cannot escape the fact that personality problems are extremely common and rejection on grounds of perceived undesirability is doltish. Both the DSM-5 (2013) alternative model and new ICD-11 classification of personality may help understanding as they are more in tune with science. Most of the previous classifications have failed to help practitioners or patients.

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.

Examining the Incremental Utility of DSM-5 Section III Traits and Impairment in Relation to Traditional Personality Disorder Scores in a Female Correctional Sample

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 738-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea E. Sleep ◽  
Dustin B. Wygant ◽  
Joshua D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Female Inmates ◽  
Societal Costs ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Narcissistic Personality ◽  
Categorical Models ◽  
Personality Psychopathology ◽  
Personality Disordered

Personality disorders (PDs) are challenging to assess and are associated with great individual and societal costs. In response to the limitations of categorical models, the DSM-5 included an alternative model (i.e., Section III), which uses impairment (Criterion A) and pathological traits (Criterion B) to diagnose PDs. Although numerous studies have illustrated dimensional trait models' ability to capture personality psychopathology, less attention has been paid to personality impairment. The present investigation sought to examine Criterion A's ability to contribute incrementally to the prediction of antisocial (ASPD), borderline (BPD), and narcissistic personality disorders (NPD), and Interpersonal-Affective (F1) and Impulsive-Antisocial (F2) features of psychopathy. The current study used 200 female inmates and found that impairment contributed to the prediction of BPD, NPD, and psychopathy F1 scores and did not add to the prediction of ASPD and psychopathy F2 scores. Difficulties in distinguishing between personality impairment and personality disordered traits are discussed.

scholarly journals Sociocultural Context and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder: Comment on Widiger & Hines

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Anthony Rodriguez-Seijas
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Sociocultural Context ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Psychological Stressors ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Theory Research

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.

scholarly journals Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (DSM-5) Predicts Dropout in Inpatient Psychotherapy for Patients With Personality Disorder

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareike Busmann ◽  
Johannes Wrege ◽  
Andrea H. Meyer ◽  
Franziska Ritzler ◽  
Moira Schmidlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Inpatient Psychotherapy ◽  
Dsm 5

Examining the Contribution of Perfectionistic Traits to the Construct Validity of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Azad Hemmati ◽  
Brandon Weiss ◽  
Atefeh Mirani ◽  
Farzin Rezaei ◽  
Joshua D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Large Sample ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Do So

Scholars of perfectionism have proposed significant modifications to DSM-5's alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD), such that (1) perfectionism be expanded beyond the inclusion of a singular trait—rigid perfectionism—and (2) perfectionistic traits be specified as trait descriptors of personality disorders (PDs) other than obsessive-compulsive PD. In this study, we evaluate these proposals by examining the degree to which (a) perfectionistic traits are already instantiated in Section II and Section III models of personality pathology; and (b) perfectionistic traits meaningfully augment the construct validity of AMPD PDs. We conducted these approaches in a large sample (N =3D 435) from an Iranian undergraduate population that is atypically found in the literature. Results showed that perfectionistic traits are already fairly well instantiated in Section III Criterion B. Perfectionistic traits minimally improved the construct validity of OCPD, but did not meaningfully do so for other PDs. Future investigation into the clinical utility of perfectionistic traits is needed.

scholarly journals A Framework for Treating DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorder Features

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher James Hopwood
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Model Framework ◽  
Dsm 5

Suggestions and hypotheses for approaching treatment using the alternative model framework for personality disorders in DSM-5, Section 3.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document