scholarly journals Results of a Day-Hospital Program for Personality Disorders. Application of the PID-5 and DSM-5 Dimensional Model

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


2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan-F. Torres-Soto ◽  
Francisco-J. Moya-Faz ◽  
Cesar-A. Giner-Alegría ◽  
Maria-A. Oliveras-Valenzuela

The PID-5 Inventory of the American Psychiatric Association evaluates personality and related disorders based on the dimensional trait model (DSM-5 Section III), which guides individual diagnosis and therapeutic needs. We analysed its usefulness as it was applied to patients that had been referred to a Day Hospital for Personality Disorders. In the sample of 85 subjects, 51 % had Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), and 47 % had Personality Disorder NOS or Mixed (PD-NOS/MP), 65 % presenting comorbid clinical disorders. Among the BPD group, 89 % were women, 53 % were under 30 years old; they presented a PID-5 profile of greater severity, the Negative Affect and Disinhibition Domains stood out, as well as the facets of depression, impulsivity, anhedonia and distraction. Their borderline symptoms (BEST scale) were of greater intensity, they used fewer symptom coping strategies and more avoidance strategies (COPE-28 inventory). Among the PD-NOS/MP group, 58 % are women, 80 % were aged over 30 years, and negative affectivity, especially anxiety, stood out in their PID-5 profile. Both groups show borderline and avoidant features in the IPDE screening. The PID-5 was useful for confirming specific diagnoses (BPD), for describing the trait profile as well as proposing the specific therapeutic needs of both BPD and PD-NOS/MP patients.


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.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Sleep ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Michael L Crowe ◽  
Josh Miller

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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (5) ◽  
pp. 396-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Djøra I. Soeteman ◽  
Roel Verheul ◽  
Jos Delimon ◽  
Anke M. M. A. Meerman ◽  
Ellen van den Eijnden ◽  
...  

BackgroundRecommendations on current clinical guidelines are informed by limited economic evidence.AimsA formal economic evaluation of three modalities of psychotherapy for patients with cluster B personality disorders.MethodA probabilistic decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of out-patient, day hospital and in-patient psychotherapy over 5 years in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Analyses were conducted from both societal and payer perspectives.ResultsFrom the societal perspective, the most cost-effective choice switched from out-patient to day hospital psychotherapy at a threshold of €12 274 per recovered patient-year; and from day hospital to in-patient psychotherapy at €113 298. In terms of cost per QALY, the optimal strategy changed at €56 325 and €286 493 per QALY respectively. From the payer perspective, the switch points were at €9895 and €155 797 per recovered patient-year, and €43 427 and €561 188 per QALY.ConclusionsOut-patient psychotherapy and day hospital psychotherapy are the optimal treatments for patients with cluster B personality disorders in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per QALY.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document