Axis II Comorbidity

2012 ◽  
pp. 218-236
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Trull ◽  
Emily M. Scheiderer ◽  
Rachel L. Tomko
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Population Studies ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Epidemiologic Survey ◽  
Clinical Investigations ◽  
Diagnostic Interviews ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Forensic Sample

This chapter is concerned with the comorbidity (or co-occurrence) among personality disorders. In the first half, we present the results from six large studies (at least 200 participants) that used structured diagnostic interviews to establish DSM-IV-TR personality disorder diagnoses. This includes present comorbidity data from two major epidemiological studies, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Next, we focus on two large clinical investigations of personality disorder comorbidity. Finally, we present data from two special population studies, including an English/Welsh forensic sample as well as a Norwegian twin sample. In the second half of this chapter, we explore both methodological and theoretical explanations of personality disorder comorbidity. We conclude with our own perspective of comorbidity as well as an overview of the implications of the current DSM-5 proposal on comorbidity.

DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder Dysfunctional Personality Traits as Predictors of Self-Reported Aggression in an Italian Sample of Consecutively Admitted, Personality-Disordered Psychotherapy Patients

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Somma ◽  
Robert F. Krueger ◽  
Kristian E. Markon ◽  
Valentina B. M. Alajmo ◽  
Emanuela Arlotta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Physical Aggression ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Personality Disordered

In order to assess the relationships between DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) maladaptive personality traits and self-reports of aggression, 508 Italian adult participants who met at least one DSM-IV Axis II/DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) diagnosis were administered the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ). Analysis results showed that multiple regression results, PID-5 Hostility, Callousness, and Risk Taking trait scale scores explained a large amount of variance in AQ Physical Aggression (PA) scores. Moreover, PID-5 Hostility, Callousness, and Risk Taking explained more than 20% of the variance in the AQ Physical Aggression scale scores that was left unexplained by selected continuously scored DSM-IV Axis II/ DSM-5 Section II PDs, whereas SCID-II Paranoid, Narcissistic, Borderline, and Antisocial PDs added only 4% of variance to the amount of variance in AQ Physical Aggression scores that was already explained by the PID-5 trait scale scores.

Comparison of Three Questionnaires to Screen for Borderline Personality Disorder in Adolescents and Young Adults

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Alebeek ◽  
Paul T. van der Heijden ◽  
Christel Hessels ◽  
Melissa S.Y. Thong ◽  
Marcel van Aken
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Borderline Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Adolescents And Young Adults ◽  
Patient Questionnaire ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm Iv

Abstract. One of the most common personality disorders among adolescents and young adults is the Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). The objective of current study was to assess three questionnaires that can reliably screen for BPD in adolescents and young adults (N = 53): the McLean Screening Instrument for BPD (MSI-BPD; Zanarini et al., 2003 ), the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire 4th edition – BPD scale (PDQ-4 BPD; Hyler, 1994 ), and the SCID-II Patient Questionnaire – BPD scale (SCID-II-PQ BPD). The nine criteria of BPD according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV; APA, 1994 ) were measured with the Structural Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II disorders – BPD scale (SCID-II; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, Williams, & Benjamin, 1995 ). Correlations between the questionnaires and the SCID-II were calculated. In addition, the sensitivity and specificity of the questionnaires were tested. All instruments predicted the BPD diagnosis equally well.

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.

Utility of DSM-5 section III personality traits in differentiating borderline personality disorder from comparison groups

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 22-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Bach ◽  
M. Sellbom ◽  
S. Bo ◽  
E. Simonsen
Keyword(s):  
Borderline Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Emotional Lability ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Comparison Groups ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Matched Samples

AbstractObjectiveBorderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a highly prevalent diagnosis in mental health care and includes a heterogeneous constellation of symptoms. As the field of personality disorder (PD) research moves to emphasize dimensional traits in its operationalization, it is important to determine how the alternative DSM-5 Section III personality trait dimensions differentiates such features in BPD patients versus comparison groups. To date, no study has attempted such validation.MethodThe current study examined the utility of the DSM-5 trait dimensions in differentiating patients with the categorical DSM-IV/5 diagnosis of BPD (n = 101) from systematically matched samples of other PD patients (n = 101) and healthy controls (n = 101). This was investigated using one-way ANOVA and multinomial logistic regression analyses.ResultsResults indicated that Emotional Lability, Risk Taking, and Suspiciousness uniquely differentiated BPD patients from other PD patients, whereas Emotional Lability, Depressivity, and Suspiciousness uniquely differentiated BPD patients from healthy controls.ConclusionEmotional Lability is in particular a key BPD feature of the proposed Section III model, whereas Suspiciousness also augments essential BPD features. Provided that these findings are replicated cross-culturally in forthcoming research, a more parsimonious traits operationalization of BPD features is warranted.

scholarly journals The influence of personality disorder on outcome in adolescent self-harm

2015 ◽  
Vol 207 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunice Ayodeji ◽  
Jonathan Green ◽  
Chris Roberts ◽  
Gemma Trainor ◽  
Justine Rothwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Adherence To Treatment ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Independent Association ◽  
One Year ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundLittle is currently known about the presence and impact of personality disorder in adolescents who self-harm.AimsTo evaluate personality disorder in repeated self-harm in adolescence and its impact on self-harm psychopathology and adaptation outcomes over 1 year.MethodA clinical referral sample (n= 366) of adolescents presenting with repeated self-harm aged 12–17 years, as part of a randomised controlled trial (Assessment of Treatment in Suicidal Teenagers study, ASSIST). Personality disorder was assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II (SCID-II). One-year outcomes included frequency and severity of repeat self-harm, self-reported suicidality, mood and functional impairment.ResultsAbout 60% of the referred adolescents showed one or more forms of personality disorder. Personality disorder was associated with significantly greater severity of self-harm, overall psychopathology and impairment. There was a complex association with treatment adherence. Personality disorder predicted worse 1-year outcomes in relation to self-harm frequency and severity, as well as impairment, suicidality and depressive symptoms.ConclusionsPersonality disorder can be reliably measured in adolescence and showed high prevalence in this clinical self-harm sample. Controlling for other variables, it showed a strong independent association with self-harm severity at referral and predicted adherence to treatment and clinical outcomes (independent of treatment) over 1 year. Consideration of personality disorder diagnosis is indicated in the assessment and management of adolescents who repeatedly self-harm.

Assessment of Personality Disorders and Related Traits: Bridging DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5

2012 ◽  
pp. 107-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller ◽  
Lauren R. Few ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Prototype Matching ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Assessment Techniques ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
The Many ◽  
Diagnostic Criterion

The assessment of personality disorders and related traits is at an important crossroads with the imminent release of DSM-5. In this chapter we first review assessment techniques and measures as they pertain to the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and pathological personality traits, focusing in particular on the many self-report inventories and semistructured interviews that have been developed. Second, we discuss the proposed changes to the diagnosis of personality disorder in DSM-5, which are substantial, and their ramifications for the assessment of personality disorder, including the (now abandoned) proposal to replace explicit diagnostic criterion sets with a prototype matching technique, the proposal to delete and/or shift a number of diagnoses from the personality disorders section, the provision of a new dimensional trait model of personality pathology, and the provision of new rating of impairment pertaining to self and interpersonal functioning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document