scholarly journals Maladaptive traits = normal range traits + personality dysfunction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Morey ◽  
Evan Good ◽  
Christopher James Hopwood
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Potential Utility ◽  
Normal Range ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
The Relationship

Objective: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders distinguishes core personality dysfunction common to all personality pathology from maladaptive traits that are specific variants of disorder. Previous research shows convergence between maladaptive and normal range trait domains as well as substantial correlations between maladaptive traits and core dysfunctions, leading some to conclude that personality traits and dysfunction are redundant. This study sought to examine the potential utility of the concept of core dysfunctions as a means of clarifying the nature of the relationship between maladaptive and normal-range traits. Method: Three non-clinical samples (n=178, 307, and 1,008) were evaluated for personality dysfunction, maladaptive traits, and normal-range traits and normative traits using different measures. Results: Results indicate that: (1) normal trait domains and core dysfunction contribute independently to understanding maladaptive traits; (2) the correlation of a normal trait domain with its putative maladaptive equivalent is consistently accounted for in part by core dysfunction; and (3) the multi-trait multi-method matrices of normal and maladaptive personality trait domains demonstrate appreciable discriminant validity problems that are clarified by a consideration of core dysfunction. Conclusion: These results suggest that maladaptive traits reflect the distinguishable contributions of core personality dysfunction (problems) and normal range personality traits (person).

scholarly journals The Role of Dimensional Maladaptive Personality Traits and Severity of Personality Pathology in Predicting Substance Use

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-266
Author(s):  
Fatima Vaezipour ◽  
◽  
Mahdi Amini ◽  
Alireza Nazem ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Drug Use ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Statistical Population ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Low Correlation ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Relationship

Objective: In recent decades, the relationship between personality traits and attitudes toward substance use has attracted much attention. Accordingly, evidence suggested a significant direct relationship between personality traits and the tendency to substance use. However, studies on the relationship between the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th Edition (DSM–5) (PID-5) PID-5 model, personality pathology, and the tendency to substance use are scarce. Moreover, our survey revealed that no studies had been conducted in this respect in Iran. Drug abuse, as a prevalent condition, is of numerous etiologies, one of which is maladaptive personality traits. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between maladaptive characteristics and the severity of personality disorders in predicting substance use tendency. Methods: This descriptive research was conducted from January 2018 to December 2019 in Tehran City, Iran. The statistical population of this study consisted of 300 healthy individuals with substance abuse disorder referring to substance dependence treatment centers who were selected by the convenience sampling method. Data gathering tools were the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF), the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD), and the Addiction Tendency Questionnaire. The obtained data were analyzed by correlation and stepwise multiple regression analysis methods using SPSS. Results: The current study results revealed that drug use tendency is significantly associated with personality traits. Among the maladaptive traits, antagonism had the highest correlation with drug use (0.45). Moreover, the obtained data indicated a low correlation (0.014) between the severity of drug tendency and personality traits, according to PID-5. Conclusion: The current study results revealed that drug use tendency is significantly associated with personality traits. Among the maladaptive traits, antagonism had the highest correlation with drug use (0.45). Moreover, the obtained data indicated a low correlation (0.014) between the severity of drug tendency and personality traits, according to PID-5.

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.

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.

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.

The DSM’s Reconnection to Psychoanalytic Theory through the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 1023-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam P. Natoli
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Psychoanalytic Theory ◽  
Diagnostic System ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual ◽  
Current Systems

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.

Normative data for PID-5 domains, facets, and personality disorder composites from a representative sample and comparison to community and clinical samples

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Miller ◽  
Christopher James Hopwood ◽  
Leonard Simms ◽  
Donald Lynam
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Sum Score

The introduction of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Model of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, APA, 2013) represented a substantive change in how personality disorders (PDs) are diagnosed. One barrier to its adoption (among several) in clinical practice, however, is a lack of information as to what constitutes an elevated score on the 25 domains and facets that comprise Criterion B. Unique sets of facets can be configured to assess any one of six PDs retained in the AMPD; each of these facets can in turn be added to create a PD sum score. In the current study, using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012), we report mean scores using this instrument that align with 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 standard deviation elevations for each of these six PDs on the basis of Krueger and colleagues (2012) representative sample, and compare these to those obtained from a community and a clinical sample. These normative data may be useful to clinicians in determining whether a client has elevated scores on pathological personality domains, facets, or PDs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document