Personality Dysfunction and Trait Extremity

2019 ◽  
pp. 122-150
Author(s):  
Lee Anna Clark ◽  
Elizabeth J. Daly ◽  
Stephanie Larew ◽  
Hallie Nuzum ◽  
Thomas Kingsbury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
Personality Disordered

This chapter discusses the alternative model for personality disorders and its two criteria: impairment/dysfunction and personality disordered traits. Specifically, the chapter explores the distinctiveness between the two criteria. It notes that there is descriptive overlap between them, and it reports on a study examining the degree of empirical overlap. This overlap was reported to be extremely high, with correlations of .76 and .80 for self-report and interview ratings, respectively.

Machiavellianism and personality disorder: their relationship in the mirror of interpersonal attitudes

2014 ◽  
Vol 155 (40) ◽  
pp. 1584-1588
Author(s):  
András Láng
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Interpersonal Problems ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Callous Unemotional ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
Medium Strength

Introduction: Social and personality psychologists have described Machiavellianism as a pragmatic, callous-unemotional, exploitative and manipulative attitude towards others. Several former studies linked Machiavellian personality traits and interpersonal problems or personality dysfunction. Aim: The aim of this study was to reveal the connection between Machiavellianism and interpersonal problems that are characteristic of personality disorders. Method: 252 participants (146 females and 106 males, aged 32.46±5.39 years, mean±SD) filled out self-report measures of Machiavellianism and personality disorder related interpersonal problems. Results: There was a medium strength relationships between Machiavellianism and several interpersonal problems. Aggression and ambivalence proved to be significant predictors of Machiavellian personality traits. Conclusions: Results are discussed in relation to the patient–therapist bond. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(39), 1584–1588.

An evaluation of DSM-5 Section III Personality Disorder Criterion A (Impairment) in accounting for psychopathology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Sleep ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Michael L Crowe ◽  
Josh Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Statistical Prediction ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
Axis I

An alternative diagnostic model of personality disorders (AMPD) was introduced in DSM-5 that diagnoses PDs based on the presence of personality impairment (Criterion A) and pathological personality traits (Criterion B). Research examining Criterion A has been limited to date, due to the lack of a specific measure to assess it; this changed, however, with the recent publication of a self-report assessment of personality dysfunction as defined by Criterion A (Levels of Personality Functioning Scale – Self-report; LPFS-SR; Morey, 2017). The aim of the current study was to test several key propositions regarding the role of Criterion A in the AMPD including the underlying factor structure of the LPFS-SR, the discriminant validity of the hypothesized factors, whether Criterion A distinguishes personality psychopathology from Axis I symptoms, the overlap between Criterion A and B, and the incremental predictive utility of Criterion A and B in the statistical prediction of traditional PD symptom counts. Neither a single factor model nor an a priori four-factor model of dysfunction fit the data well. The LPFS-SR dimensions were highly interrelated and manifested little evidence of discriminant validity. In addition, the impairment dimensions manifested robust correlations with measures of both Axis I and II constructs, challenging the notion that personality dysfunction is unique to PDs. Finally, multivariate regression analyses suggested that the traits account for substantially more unique variance in DSM-5 Section II PDs than does personality impairment. These results provide important information as to the functioning of the two main components of the DSM-5 AMPD and raise questions about whether the model may need revision moving forward.Keywords: dysfunction, impairment, personality disorders, Section III, incremental validity Public Significance: The alternative model of personality disorders included in Section III of the 5th addition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes two primary components: personality dysfunction and maladaptive traits. The current results raise questions about how a new, DSM-5 aligned measure of personality dysfunction operates with regard its factor structure, discriminant validity, ability to differentiate between personality and non-personality based forms of psychopathology, and incremental validity in the statistical prediction of traditional DSM personality disorders.

Comparing Measures of Criterion A to Better Understand Incremental Validity in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Assessment ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107319112110597
Author(s):  
Michael J. Roche ◽  
Sarah Jaweed
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
Additional Variance ◽  
Variance Explained

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders distinguishes between the severity of personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and individual differences in personality disorder expression (Criterion B). Several Criterion A measures exist, but few studies have compared these measures with each other. Moreover, debates about whether the constructs of Criteria A and B are redundant (i.e., weak incremental validity) should be framed around how different Criterion A measures perform relative to others. This study of 204 undergraduate students evaluated multiple measures of Criterion A. These measures were strongly correlated with Criterion B, but evidenced incremental validity (39% of outcomes, 5% average additional variance explained) with outcomes of psychopathology and interpersonal impairments, and less consistent incremental validity with suicidality, aggression, and mental health utilization. We discuss how these results inform the construct of Criterion A relative to Criterion B and evaluate strengths/weaknesses of Criterion A measures.

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.

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.

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

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.

scholarly journals A Model-Based Strategy for Interfacing Traits of the DSM-5 AMPD With Neurobiology

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 586-608
Author(s):  
Colin B. Bowyer ◽  
Keanan J. Joyner ◽  
Robert D. Latzman ◽  
Noah C. Venables ◽  
Jens Foell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Externalizing Problems ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Brain Response ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Report Data ◽  
Self Report Data ◽  
Correlated Factors

The DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) groups traits into domains based on factor analyses of self-report data. AMPD traits may need to be configured differently to interface with neurobiology. Focusing on biobehavioral risk for externalizing problems in 334 adults, the authors used structural modeling to evaluate how well alternative configurations of AMPD traits, operationalized using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), interface with neural indicators of externalizing liability. A model specifying two correlated factors defined by traits within the PID-5 Disinhibition domain and brain-response indicators of externalizing proneness exhibited inadequate fit. However, a model using PID-5 traits with better coverage of biobehavioral externalizing liability evidenced good fit. Scores on this PID-5 trait factor, termed “PID-5 Externalizing Proneness,” converged well with criterion measures of externalizing proneness and diverged from measures of threat sensitivity. Findings illustrate how AMPD traits can be configured for use in investigations of biobehavioral risk for psychopathology.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document