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.

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.

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.

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.

Personality Disorders in the DSM-5: Proposed Revisions and Critiques

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Good
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Categorical Model ◽  
Dsm Iv

This article discusses the Personality and Personality Disorder Work Group's proposed changes for Personality Disorders in the DSM-5: (a) adoption of a hybrid dimensional-categorical model; (b) utilization of 6 personality disorder types instead of the previous 10 personality disorders; (c) addition of personality traits and facets to define personality disorders; (d) addition of a rating scale for levels of personality functioning; (e) revised diagnostic criteria; and (f) the collapsing of Axes I, II, and III. Also discussed are ways in which the DSM-5 proposals are reactions to criticisms of the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) and criticisms of the proposed changes.

scholarly journals If an Entrepreneur Founded the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder: When Axis II Meets Disruptive Innovation

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L Tackett ◽  
Kathleen Wade Reardon ◽  
Melissa Kaufman ◽  
Ryne A. Sherman
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Developmental Process ◽  
Disruptive Innovation ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Paradigm Shifting

Personality disorder (PD) researchers proposed a highly innovative “paradigm-shifting” revamp for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5; APA, 2013). Yet, ten years later, Widiger and Hines (this issue) summarize a developmental process plagued by disagreement and stagnation, with little evidence of the field having reaped the desired benefits of this diagnostic revolution. In this commentary, we draw on principles from entrepreneurial creation, operation, and success—positioning the personality disorder scientists in the role of “disruptive innovator”—and summarize key principles from the entrepreneurial process that may be relevant in understanding the challenges and failures of the personality disorder revolution to date.

Clinical Utility of the MMPI-2-RF Hierarchical Description

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 907-912
Author(s):  
Hilde De Saeger ◽  
Jan H. Kamphuis ◽  
Jaime L. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ◽  
Model Description ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
The Mean

Abstract. Several studies have addressed the associations between the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008 ) scale scores and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ) Section II personality disorder (PD) criterion counts. While these studies showed which variables were associated with the PDs as well as their combined predictive potency, no information is available on mean patterns of elevation associated with these conditions. To illustrate how the MMPI-2-RF information may amplify categorical diagnostic information, we describe the mean RF profiles of a psychiatric sample with a Cluster C PD diagnosis. PD classification was based on the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV (SCID-II). Patterns of elevation across the three levels of the MMPI-2-RF scale sets were consistently in line with theoretical expectation. In addition, elevated scores on somatic/cognitive scales were noted. It is concluded that the MMPI-2-RF can enhance DSM Personality disorder model description.

scholarly journals Can DSM-IV borderline personality disorder be diagnosed via dimensional personality traits? Implications for the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal.

2012 ◽  
Vol 121 (4) ◽  
pp. 944-950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller ◽  
Jennifer Q. Morse ◽  
Kimberly Nolf ◽  
Stephanie D. Stepp ◽  
Paul A. Pilkonis
Keyword(s):  
Borderline Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Dsm Iv

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.

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