Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM–5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module I--Norwegian Version

The current study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I) assessing the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) in a heterogeneous sample of 282 nonpsychotic patients. Latent variable models were used to investigate the dimensionality of the LPFS. The results indicate that the LPFS, as assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD-I, can be considered as a unidimensional construct that can be measured reliably across a wide range of the latent trait. Threshold parameters for the 12 indicators of the LPFS increased gradually over the latent scale, indicating that the five LPFS levels were ordered as predicted by the model. In general, the increase of threshold parameters was relatively small for the shift from Level 2 to Level 3. A better distinction among the different severity levels might be obtained by fine-tuning the interview guidelines or the Level 2 indicators themselves.

Download Full-text

The Inter-Rater Reliability and Validity of the Italian Translation of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I and Module II: A Preliminary Report on Consecutively Admitted Psychotherapy Outpatients

Journal of Personality Disorders ◽

10.1521/pedi_2020_34_511 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 34 (Supplement C) ◽

pp. 95-123

Author(s):

Antonella Somma ◽

Serena Borroni ◽

Giulia Gialdi ◽

Davide Carlotta ◽

Laura Emanuela Giarolli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorders ◽

Alternative Model ◽

Convergent Validity ◽

Clinical Utility ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Clinical Interview ◽

Self Report ◽

Rater Reliability ◽

Personality Functioning ◽

Dsm 5

To evaluate the reliability and convergent validity of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (SCID-5-AMPD) Module I and Module II, 88 adult psychotherapy participants were administered the Italian translations of the SCID-5-AMPD Module I and Module II, Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF), Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report (LPFS-SF), Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (SCID-5-PD) relying on a Williams crossover design. SCID-5-AMPD Module I and Module II showed excellent inter-rater reliability. In terms of convergent validity, meaningful associations were observed between SCID-5-AMPD Module I scores and self-report measures of Criterion A; similarly, SCID-5-AMPD Module II trait scores were meaningfully related to PID-5 trait scores. As a whole, our preliminary findings supported the clinical utility of DSM-5 AMPD.

Download Full-text

Clinical Utility of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Journal of Psychiatric Practice ◽

10.1097/01.pra.0000460618.02805.ef ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 3-25 ◽

Cited By ~ 35

Author(s):

BO BACH ◽

KRISTIAN MARKON ◽

ERIK SIMONSEN ◽

ROBERT F. KRUEGER

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorders ◽

Alternative Model ◽

Clinical Utility ◽

Dsm 5

Download Full-text

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders and Clinical Treatment: a Review

Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry ◽

10.1007/s40501-019-00187-7 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. 284-298 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Craig Rodriguez-Seijas ◽

Camilo Ruggero ◽

Nicholas R. Eaton ◽

Robert F. Krueger

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorders ◽

Alternative Model ◽

Clinical Treatment ◽

Dsm 5

Download Full-text

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders.

The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease ◽

10.1097/nmd.0000000000001047 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 207 (10) ◽

pp. 897

Author(s):

Pedro Ruiz

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorders ◽

Alternative Model ◽

Dsm 5

Download Full-text

Personality Disorders in DSM-5: Emerging Research on the Alternative Model

Current Psychiatry Reports ◽

10.1007/s11920-015-0558-0 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 17 (4) ◽

Cited By ~ 41

Author(s):

Leslie C. Morey ◽

Kathryn T. Benson ◽

Alexander J. Busch ◽

Andrew E. Skodol

Keyword(s):

Personality Disorders ◽

Alternative Model ◽

Dsm 5

Download Full-text

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

Psychological Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0033291715002226 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 46 (3) ◽

pp. 647-655 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

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.

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