scholarly journals The Association between DSM-5 Personality Pathology Traits and Violence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marissa Jennings

The recently published DSM-5 included a dimensional model of personality pathology, which includes pathological traits. This model is a response to the many criticisms and problems documented with the traditional categorical modal of personality disorders. To date, numerous studies have demonstrated that the trait model is more valid and reliable than the traditional categorical model (Krueger and Markon 2013). This study expands research on the trait model by assessing the association between the DSM-5 traits and propensity for, or attitudes about, violence.

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marissa Jennings

The recently published DSM-5 included a dimensional model of personality pathology, which includes pathological traits. This model is a response to the many criticisms and problems documented with the traditional categorical modal of personality disorders. To date, numerous studies have demonstrated that the trait model is more valid and reliable than the traditional categorical model (Krueger and Markon 2013). This study expands research on the trait model by assessing the association between the DSM-5 traits and propensity for, or attitudes about, violence.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (Spring 2017) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marissa Jennings

The recently published DSM-5 included a dimensional model of personality pathology, which includes pathological traits. This model is a response to the many criticisms and problems documented with the traditional categorical modal of personality disorders. To date, numerous studies have demonstrated that the trait model is more valid and reliable than the traditional categorical model (Krueger and Markon 2013). This study expands research on the trait model by assessing the association between the DSM-5 traits and propensity for, or attitudes about, violence.


2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 1705-1713 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Morey ◽  
C. J. Hopwood ◽  
J. C. Markowitz ◽  
J. G. Gunderson ◽  
C. M. Grilo ◽  
...  

BackgroundSeveral conceptual models have been considered for the assessment of personality pathology in DSM-5. This study sought to extend our previous findings to compare the long-term predictive validity of three such models: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP), and DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs).MethodAn inception cohort from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorder Study (CLPS) was followed for 10 years. Baseline data were used to predict long-term outcomes, including functioning, Axis I psychopathology, and medication use.ResultsEach model was significantly valid, predicting a host of important clinical outcomes. Lower-order elements of the FFM system were not more valid than higher-order factors, and DSM-IV diagnostic categories were less valid than dimensional symptom counts. Approaches that integrate normative traits and personality pathology proved to be most predictive, as the SNAP, a system that integrates normal and pathological traits, generally showed the largest validity coefficients overall, and the DSM-IV PD syndromes and FFM traits tended to provide substantial incremental information relative to one another.ConclusionsDSM-5 PD assessment should involve an integration of personality traits with characteristic features of PDs.


Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller ◽  
Lauren R. Few ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 1023-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam P. Natoli

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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 000-000
Author(s):  
Juan F. Torres-Soto ◽  
Pedro Iborra-Giner ◽  
César A. Giner-Alegría ◽  
Francisco J. Moya-Faz

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Good

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document