scholarly journals The role of identity in the DSM-5 classification of personality disorders

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Schmeck ◽  
Susanne Schlüter-Müller ◽  
Pamela A Foelsch ◽  
Stephan Doering
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Dsm 5

scholarly journals The Utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 Traits for Differentiating Patients With Personality Disorders From Other Clinical Groups

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rute Pires ◽  
Joana Henriques-Calado ◽  
Ana Sousa Ferreira ◽  
Bo Bach ◽  
Marco Paulino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Negative Affectivity ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Composite Score ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Emotional Lability ◽  
Global Severity Index ◽  
Dsm 5

The ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders delineates five trait domain qualifiers (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia), whereas the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders also delineates a separate domain of psychoticism. These six combined traits not only characterize individual stylistic features, but also the severity of their maladaptive expressions. It was, therefore, the aim of this study to investigate the utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 trait domains to differentiate patients with personality disorders (PD) from patients with other mental disorders (non-PD). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+M) was administered to a sample of patients diagnosed with a personality disorder (N = 124, Mage = 42.21, 42.7% females) along with a sample of patients diagnosed with other mental disorders (N = 335, Mage = 44.83, 46.6% females). Group differences were explored using the independent sample t test or the Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples, and discriminant factor analysis was used to maximize group differences for each trait domain and facet score. The PD group showed significantly higher scores for the total PID5BF+M composite score, for the trait domains of negative affectivity, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition and for the trait facets of emotional lability, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and impulsivity. The trait domains of disinhibition, negative affectivity, and antagonism/dissociality as well as the trait facets of impulsivity, deceitfulness, emotional lability, and manipulativeness were the best discriminators between PD and non-PD patients. The global PID5BF+M composite score was also one of the best discriminators supporting its potential as a global severity index for detecting personality dysfunction. Finally, high scores in three or more of the 18 PID5BF+M facets suggested the possible presence of a PD diagnosis. Despite some limitations, our findings suggest that the ICD-11 and DSM-5 traits have the potential to specifically describe the stylistic features that characterize individuals with PD, including the severity of their maladaptive expressions.

Assessment of DSM–III–R Personality Disorders by Self-Report Questionnaire: the Role of Informants and a Screening Test for Co-morbid Personality Disorders (STCPD)

1992 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. Dowson
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Self Report ◽  
The Mean

A modified version of the revised Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ–R), based on DSM–III–R personality disorders (PDs), was completed by 60 psychiatric patients. An informant's version was also completed by 60 relatives or friends nominated by each subject. Discrete DSM–III–R PDs were rare; the mean number of PDs per subject was 4.5. Cluster analysis showed that only antisocial PD was a basis for classification of patients, while most patients formed two groups which were mainly distinguished by quantitative differences related to the total scores of positive PD criteria. A shorter version of the questionnaire can be used as a screening test for co-morbid PDs (STCPD) which can predict the number of co-morbid DSM–III–R PDs. The total scores of positive PD criteria from the STCPD were usually (and significantly) higher than the corresponding scores from informants' questionnaires but when an informant's total score exceeded that of the patient, this indicated a subject's under-reporting.

scholarly journals International Assessment of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Traits: Toward a Common Nosology in DSM-5.1

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Bach ◽  
André Kerber ◽  
Anton Aluja ◽  
Tim Bastiaens ◽  
Jared W Keeley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Negative Affectivity ◽  
Patient Report ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Reliable Assessment ◽  
Supplemental Appendix ◽  
International Assessment ◽  
Report Measure ◽  
The U.S

Introduction: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders (PD) are largely commensurate, and when combined, they delineate six trait domains: Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism/Dissociality, Disinhibition, Anankastia, and Psychoticism. Objective: The present study evaluated the international validity of abrief 36-item patient-report measure that portrays all six domains simultaneously including 18 primary subfacets. Methods: We developed and employed a modified version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+). A total number of 16,327 individuals were included, of which 2,347 were patients. The expected 6-factor structure of facets was initially investigated insamples from Denmark (n = 584), Germany (n = 1,271), and the U.S. (n = 605), and was subsequently replicated in both patient- and community samples from Italy, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, U.S., and Brazil. Associations with interview-rated DSM-5 PD categories were also investigated. Results: Findings generally supported the empirical soundness andinternational robustness of the six domains including meaningful associations with familiar interviewratedPD types. Conclusions: The modified PID5BF+ may be employed internationally by clinicians and researchers for brief and reliable assessment of the six combined DSM-5 and ICD-11 domains, including 18 primary subfacets. This six-domain framework may inform a future nosology for DSM-5.1 that is more reasonably aligned with the authoritative ICD-11 codes than the current DSM-5 AMPD model. The 36-item modified PID5BF+ scoring key is provided in supplemental Appendix A.

scholarly journals The role of migration processes and cultural factors in the classification of personality disorders

2021 ◽  
pp. 136346152110364
Author(s):  
Ardalan Najjarkakhaki ◽  
Samrad Ghane
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Ethnic Minorities ◽  
Historical Trauma ◽  
Cultural Factors ◽  
Cultural Dimensions ◽  
Economic Resources ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Indigenous Populations

Migrants and ethnic minorities are at risk of being under- and overdiagnosed with personality disorders (PDs). A culturally informed approach to the classification of PDs guides clinicians in incorporating migration processes and cultural factors, to arrive at a reliable and valid assessment of personality pathology. In this article, we provide a tentative framework to highlight specific interactions between personality disorders, migration processes, and cultural factors. It is argued that migration processes can merely resemble personality pathology, activate certain (latent) vulnerabilities, and aggravate pre-existing personality pathology. We propose that these migration processes can include manifestations of grief about the loss of pre-migratory psychosocial and economic resources, and the struggle to attain psychosocial and economic resources in the host culture. Moreover, several cultural dimensions are outlined that can either resemble or mask personality pathology. The term “culturally masked personality disorder” is coined, to delineate clinical cases in which cultural factors are overused or misused to rationalize behavioral patterns that are consistently inflexible, distressing, or harmful to the individual and/or significant others, lead to significant impairment, and exceed the relevant cultural norms. Additionally, the role of historical trauma is addressed in the context of potential overdiagnosis of personality disorders in Indigenous persons, and the implications of misdiagnosis in migrants, ethnic minorities, and Indigenous populations are elaborated. Finally, clinical implications are discussed, outlining various diagnostic steps, including an assessment of temperament/character, developmental history, systemic/family dynamics, migration processes, cultural dimensions, and possible historical trauma.

scholarly journals Attachment, Mentalization, and Criterion B of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ericka Ball Cooper ◽  
Jaime L. Anderson ◽  
Carla Sharp ◽  
Hillary A. Langley ◽  
Amanda Venta
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Negative Affectivity ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Attachment Avoidance ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Interaction Terms ◽  
Interpersonal Difficulties ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Background The mentalization theory posits that interpersonal difficulties and maladaptive personality traits develop from an insecure attachment pattern with one’s caregiver and corresponding deficits in mentalizing—the ability to understand others’ and one’s own mental states. Mentalizing deficits have been theorized as the basis for all psychopathology, with the paradigmatic case being Borderline Personality Disorder. Nevertheless, developments in the personality field indicate personality pathology is best represented dimensionally, and such a proposal was outlined by the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Despite evidence linking the mentalization theory to personality disorders, however, it has yet to be applied to Criterion B of the AMPD. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the moderating role of mentalizing in the relation between attachment and Criterion B maladaptive trait function in a sample of undergraduates. We hypothesized a model in which: (1) attachment insecurity would be positively associated with the Negative Affectivity, Antagonism, and Disinhibition personality domains; (2) mentalizing ability would be negatively associated with these domains; and, (3) there would be an interaction effect between attachment and mentalizing when predicting these same domains. Methods Personality domains were measured dimensionally via the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5-SF), while the dependence and avoidance domains of attachment were assessed via the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ). Mentalizing ability was tapped by the Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition (MASC). The AMPD personality domains and trait facets were examined as dependent variables; attachment dependence, attachment avoidance, and overall mentalizing ability were entered as independent variables; and interaction terms between mentalizing and each attachment dimension were used to test moderation via MANCOVAs. Results Consistent with expectations, results indicated overall mentalizing moderated the relation between attachment avoidance and Negative Affectivity. Posthoc analyses revealed similar effects on the relations between attachment avoidance and the Emotional Lability, Hostility, and Perseveration trait facets; however, there were no significant moderation findings related to attachment dependence. Conclusions These results support the mentalization theory’s application to Criterion B of the AMPD, particularly in relation to the links between Negative Affectivity and borderline-related traits, and encourage future research of dimensional maladaptive personality. They further bolster support for understanding maladaptive personality as a dimensional construct.

Why, How, and When to Integrate Narrative Identity Within Dimensional Approaches to Personality Disorders

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Majse Lind ◽  
Carla Sharp ◽  
William L. Dunlop
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Narrative Identity ◽  
Life Stories ◽  
Identity Theory ◽  
The Self ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Considerable Benefit

Researchers and clinicians are beginning to adopt dimensional approaches in the study and treatment of personality disorders (PD). Although dimensional approaches in the DSM-5 and ICD-11 hold considerable benefit, they need to better incorporate an appreciation of individuals’ life stories, or narrative identities. Doing so will be necessary to flesh out the emphasis that both frameworks place on the role of identity in personality pathology. In this article, the authors review why, how, and when narrative identity theory and research can be integrated within dimensional approaches to PD. The authors describe established ways to assess narrative identity, review extant research on this construct in relation to PD, and signal areas crucial for future research. Stories lie at the heart of what it means to be human. The authors conclude that a greater consideration of the ways in which the self is storied can help further understanding and treatment of PD.

Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders Through the Lens of an Empirical Network Model

Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319111989711
Author(s):  
Carmen Díaz-Batanero ◽  
Antón Aluja ◽  
Pablo Sayans-Jiménez ◽  
Eva Baillés ◽  
Fermín Fernández-Calderón ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Normative Sample ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Personality Facets ◽  
New Perspective

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document