Alternative Model For Personality Disorders Research Articles

Prospective prediction of treatment outcomes in adolescents: A head-to-head comparison of alternative model for personality disorder versus borderline personality disorder.

Despite substantial evidence in support of the alternative model for personality disorder (AMPD) that has accumulated over the last decade, a gap remains in terms of head-to-head comparisons of the predictive power of Section II categorical diagnoses versus Section III AMPD diagnoses for clinical outcomes. The current study uses archival data from a naturalistic treatment outcome study in an adolescent psychiatric inpatient sample to compare the predictive power of the Section III AMPD (combined Criterion A and B assessment) versus Section II borderline personality disorder (BPD) in predicting treatment outcomes from admission to discharge. Outcomes in general psychiatric severity and emotion dysregulation were assessed in a sample of 59 adolescents (76.3% female, Mage = 15.27, SD = 1.17) at admission and at discharge on average about a month later. Results showed that, on average, predictive power of both AMPD measures and BPD were relatively modest. However, the AMPD, operationalized through combined measures of identity diffusion and maladaptive traits, was a stronger predictor of reduction in general psychiatric severity than a measure of BPD. The findings of the study add to a growing body of literature pointing to the advantages of Section III AMPD over Section II categorical diagnosis for clinical utility in predicting treatment response. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

First psychometric evaluation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 in adolescents.

Reflecting the recent consensus that challenges in personality functioning often onsets in adolescence, and the move toward dimensional models of personality pathology such as the level of personality functioning (LPF) of the alternative model for personality disorders, it is important to have validated measures that can assess LPF in young people. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) is the briefest measure of LPF and may be particularly well suited for assessing LPF in youth; however, it has yet to be formally validated in youth. Therefore, the current investigation evaluated the psychometric properties of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in adolescents drawn from a community sample of ethnically diverse North American youth (N = 194, age 12-18; 58% female). Factor structure, gender invariance, reliability, convergent validity, incremental validity, and criterion validity were evaluated. Results demonstrated support for the LPFS-BF 2.0's unidimensional factor structure, as well as high internal consistency. Configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance was supported across male and female genders, as well as convergent validity. Relative to the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 Brief Form and Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12-18, the LPFS-BF 2.0 demonstrated additional variance in predicting borderline personality features, and internalizing and externalizing problems. Study findings support the English version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 as a brief and psychometrically sound instrument for assessing LPF in youth and adolescents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

If personality disorder is just maladaptive traits, there is no such thing as personality disorder.

The diagnosis of personality disorder (PD) is undergoing a transition from a categorical model that distinguishes types from one another to a model that characterizes patients with dimensional profiles. The DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.) alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD) and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (11th ed.) have two primary criteria: the first is a dimension that differentiates PD from both normal personality and other kinds of disorder, can be used to indicate the overall level of severity of a patient's functional difficulties, and is the basis for PD diagnosis. The second is a set of traits with structural connections to normal-range personality variables that characterize the type of problems the patient is likely to have. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Clinical Staging for Personality Disorders in Older Adults.

This scientific research aimed to investigate the feasibility of implementing a clinical staging (CS) model for personality disorders (PDs) in older adults. The CS model could provide valuable insights into the life course of personality pathology, prognosis, and treatment decisions for PDs in older adults. The study employed an international Delphi methodology with three rounds and involved 21 experts. Consensus was achieved on 12 out of 17 statements, confirming the viability of a CS model for PDs in older adults. The proposed model incorporates the Alternative Model for PDs, criterion A, and integrates life course information, distinguishing between chronic PD, re-emergent PD, late-onset PD, and past PD. The findings suggest that international experts support the implementation of a CS model for PDs in older adults, considering both the severity of personality functioning and the retrospective life course of PD expression.

Competing Models of Personality Disorder: Relations With Psychosocial Functioning.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), includes 10 categorical personality disorders (PD) in Section II (Section II PD) and a dimensional alternative model of PD (AMPD) in Section III. We compared the two models in explaining concurrent psychosocial functioning levels in psychiatric outpatients and community residents screened as at risk for PD pathology (N = 600). The AMPD's fully dimensional form showed stronger associations with psychosocial difficulties and explained more of their variance compared with the categorical Section II PD. AMPD Criterion A (personality functioning impairment) and Criterion B (pathological traits) incrementally predicted psychosocial functioning about equally with some unique predictions. Finally, AMPD's six categorical PD diagnoses did not show stronger associations with psychosocial functioning than the corresponding Section II PD diagnoses. Findings directly comparing the two models remain important and timely for informing future conceptualizations of PD in the diagnostic system.

Comparing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorder models scored from the same interview.

The alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) traits were designed to maintain continuity with the Section II personality disorder (PD) diagnoses by retaining the same clinical information. Whether the AMPD traits achieve this is not well established. Prior work testing incremental validity of AMPD traits and Section II diagnoses is limited by the fact each model was measured by a different instrument or rater, making it unclear whether discrepancies are due to the constructs or methods. Here, we compare the incremental validity of AMPD traits versus Section II PDs assessed by the same instrument and rater. Participants (N = 311, 50% received past-year mental health treatment) completed a clinical interview, baseline self-reports, and 14-day ambulatory assessment protocol. Interviewers rated AMPD domains, facets, and Section II criteria from the same interview (Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality). We used hierarchical regression models to evaluate the variance predicted in 17 clinically relevant cross-sectional and momentary variables by the AMPD traits and Section II PDs. Incremental R² showed that Section II PDs account for little variance in outcomes over and above the AMPD domains/facets, whereas the AMPD facets were generally more predictive of outcomes than the Section II PDs. Results add novel evidence that dimensional PD traits-not a particular assessment method-are equivalent or superior to PD categories for predicting social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Predicting nonsuicidal self-injury and suicidal risk: A comparison between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition Section II personality disorder and alternative model of personality disorders dimensions.

The clinical relevance of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) has received growing recognition, and NSSI represents a relevant risk factor for suicide. The present study aimed at running a head-to-head comparison between interview scores of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Section II personality disorders (PDs) criteria, and DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) Criterion A and Criterion B measures in providing significant and relevant information for understanding NSSI and suicidal ideation and behavior among psychotherapy participants. To this aim, a clinical sample of 103 adult participants was administered the Clinician-Administered Nonsuicidal Self-Injury Disorder Index (CANDI), the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), as well as the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders, the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I, and a self-report measure of dysfunctional personality traits (i.e., the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5]). Logistic ordinal regression dominance analysis results showed that, when compared to the 10 DSM-5 Section II PD symptom counts, the DSM-5 Section III PD measure scores provided the same amount of information in the CANDI Global Severity Index scores (Nagelkerke pseudo-R² value = .41), and a markedly larger information quantity in the case of the C-SSRS Suicidal Ideation (+35.1%), and Suicidal Behavior Index (+35.9%) levels. As a whole, our data suggested the clinical usefulness of the DSM-5 AMPD in understanding NSSI and suicidal ideation and behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Clinical profiles of adolescent personality pathology: a latent structure examination of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) in a help-seeking sample

BackgroundDespite the introduction of dimensional conceptualisations of personality functioning in the latest classification systems, such as Criterion A of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders in the DSM-5, heterogeneous clinical presentation of personality pathology remains a challenge. Relatedly, the latent structure of personality pathology as assessed by the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) has not yet been comprehensively examined in adolescents. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the latent structure of the STiP-5.1, and, based on those findings, to describe any unique clinical profiles that might emerge.MethodsThe final sample comprised 502 participants aged 11–18 years consecutively recruited from a specialised personality disorder outpatient service, as well as general day clinic and inpatient wards at the University Hospital University Hospital of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland. Participants were assessed using the STiP-5.1, as well as a battery of other psychological measures by clinical psychologists or trained doctoral students. Variations of Factor Analysis, Latent Class Analysis and Factor Mixture Models (FMM) were applied to the STiP-5.1 to determine the most appropriate structure.ResultsThe best fitting model was an FMM comprising four-classes and two factors (corresponding to self- and interpersonal-functioning). The classes differed in both overall severity of personality functioning impairment, and in their scores and clinical relevance on each element of the STiP-5.1. When compared to the overall sample, classes differed in their unique clinical presentation: class 1 had low impairment, class 2 had impairments primarily in self-functioning with high depressivity, class 3 had mixed levels of impairment with emerging problems in identity and empathy, and class 4 had severe overall personality functioning impairment.ConclusionsA complex model incorporating both dimensional and categorical components most adequately describes the latent structure of the STiP-5.1 in our adolescent sample. We conclude that Criterion A provides clinically useful information beyond severity (as a dimensional continuum) alone, and that the hybrid model found for personality functioning in our sample warrants further attention. Findings can help to parse out clinical heterogeneity in personality pathology in adolescents, and help to inform early identification and intervention efforts.

Assessing Criterion A of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders: The Potential of Performance-Based Personality Measures.

The conceptualization of personality disorder has been refined through recent nosological advances introduced in the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). These advances locate self and interpersonal (dys)function at the core of personality pathology. Self-report personality assessment instruments have demonstrated promise in the assessment of Criterion A domains. However, research highlighting the utility of performance-based personality assessment instruments has been largely absent in these advances, despite acknowledgment of their potential. We adhered to PRISMA review guidelines to survey and assess the potential relevance and utility of select performance-based personality instruments in assessing Criterion A domains of the AMPD. We conclude that performance-based personality measures are uniquely positioned to assess maladaptive self- and interpersonal functioning and may address some limitations of self-report measures. Toward this end, we propose a working model that provides ranges of test scores that correspond to the 5-point scale of the Criterion A domains of the AMPD.

Comparing the DSM-5 categorical model of personality disorders and the alternative model of personality disorders regarding clinician judgments of risk and outcome.

The goal of this study was to compare the predictive validity of the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) versus the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Section II categorical model regarding clinician judgments about mental health outcomes. To do so, we instructed a national sample of 136 mental health professionals to provide clinical judgments on a random subset of four (out of a possible 12) case vignettes. For each case, they made a variety of diagnostic judgments corresponding to each model, as well as clinical outcome judgments (e.g., prognosis). Our analyses included hierarchical and individual regressions to compare the predictive value of each diagnostic system toward these clinical outcome judgments. We found that the AMPD predictors consistently added unique variance beyond the Section II predictors, whereas the Section II predictors were rarely incremental above the AMPD. Further, the AMPD judgments predicted outcome judgments very consistently (98.3% of regressions) compared to the Section II predictors (70% of regressions), and the single Criterion A judgment (level of personality functioning) was the strongest overall predictor. Finally, the categorical borderline personality disorder diagnoses from the two systems performed similarly in predicting clinical outcomes and agreed in 79% of cases. We interpreted our results to suggest that the AMPD is at least as effective, and by some measures more effective, than the DSM-5 categorical model at predicting clinician's judgment of outcomes in clinical cases. We conclude by discussing the value of this evidence in relation to the broader AMPD literature, as well as possible paths forward for the diagnosis of personality disorders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Borderline personality disorder and aggressive behavior: A study based on the DSM-5 alternative model

IntroductionUnplanned reactive aggressive acts are a clinical feature of particular interest in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD). The early identification of personality traits correlated to aggressive behavior is certainly desirable in BDP populations. This study analyzes a clinical sample of 122 adult outpatients with BPD referred to Adult Mental Health Services of the Department of Mental Health of Bologna, in Italy. MethodsThe study examines the relationship with personality facets of the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD), Personality Inventory for DSM (PID-5), with respect to the four main components of aggression measured by the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ): hostility, anger, verbal and physical aggression. Using robust regression models, the relationships between PID-5 facets and domains and the aggression components under consideration were identified. ResultsVerbal and physical aggression in our sample of BPD outpatients is mainly associated to PID-5 antagonism domain. Physically aggressive behavior is also related to callousness facet. ConclusionsThe traits most consistently associated with aggression were the domain of Antagonism and the facet of Hostility. The study findings highlight the need for clinicians working with individuals with BPD to pay particular attention to traits of hostility, callousness, and hostility to understand aggression.

The relationship between bullying victimization and impairment in personality functioning in a clinical adolescent sample.

Problematic interpersonal relationships may represent both, a risk factor for the development or trigger of personality disorder (PD) symptoms and its consequences. Since peer relationships become more and more important in adolescence, the current study explores the cross-sectional association between recent bullying experiences and levels of impairment in personality functioning according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD; Criterion A) in help-seeking adolescents (N = 493). Logistic and multiple regression analyses revealed that patients who were frequently bullied in the past 3 months (i.e., at least once a week) were more likely to reach the diagnostic threshold for PD according to the AMPD (OR = 1.71, p = .025) and showed higher levels of impairment in identity (β = .41, p < .001), empathy (β = .26, p = .002), and intimacy (β = .30, p = .001), but not self-direction, compared to patients who did not report any bullying experiences. Occasional bullying in the past 3 months (i.e., every few weeks) was neither associated with a greater likelihood to reach the diagnostic threshold for PD nor with greater impairments in identity, self-direction, empathy, or intimacy compared to no bullying. While the current study provides support for a correlation between bullying experiences and personality dysfunction (particularly in the elements identity and intimacy), longitudinal research is needed to clarify whether experiences of bullying cause or trigger personality dysfunction or/and vice versa. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Supplemental Material for Comparing the DSM-5 Categorical Model of Personality Disorders and the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Regarding Clinician Judgments of Risk and Outcome

Supplemental Material for Comparing the DSM-5 Categorical Model of Personality Disorders and the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Regarding Clinician Judgments of Risk and Outcome

Enhancing Diabetes Management Through Personality Assessment: A Pilot Study.

The aims of this study were to evaluate the utility of therapeutic assessment (therapeutic assessment) as a brief intervention to target reduction in A1C levels and to assess the levels of personality functioning and broad trait domains described in the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders in a sample of patients with Type 2 diabetes and their relationship to A1C levels at baseline and follow-up. Participants (n = 99) were recruited from a primary care office and provided feedback on how their personality functioning and pathological personality traits might influence their diabetes management. Results indicated that 66.25% of participants receiving TA feedback decreased their A1C levels below 7. Those who improved reported less difficulty with intimacy and trends toward higher levels of personality functioning and lower levels of interpersonal detachment. Results suggest that providing TA feedback is worthy of further investigation for considering its therapeutic effects in helping patients to manage Type 2 diabetes.

Measurement invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 across sex.

There has been an international movement towards dimensional models of personality disorders (PDs) in the last decades, which culminated in the publication of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) in the Emerging Measures and Models section of the DSM-5. This model was accompanied by a APA-sanctioned Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) for the assessment of the AMPD pathological personality traits. One major issue with the assessment of personality disorders pertains to sex differences, and measurement invariance across sex in assessment instruments for PDs is necessary in order to ensure non-biased evaluations and to make valid comparisons between men and women. This study aimed to provide more information on measurement invariance across sex for the PID-5, using both the original scoring approach provided by the authors of the instrument and the scoring approach suggested by the APA in the published version of the PID-5. This study was conducted with a sample of 2273 participants from the general Québec (Canada) adult population aged 18 to 90 years (M = 46.59; SD = 16.32; 51.8% women). The original scoring approach model showed good fit to data after freeing paths between certain traits and reached strict invariance. The APA scoring approach also showed good fit to data and reached strict invariance, but needed an adjustment (path freed between Emotional lability and Impulsivity in men) to reach scalar invariance. In line with previous research, the PID-5 is invariant across sex and the five-factor structure adjusts well to data. The APA scoring approach appears to attenuate the cross-loading problem observed with the original scoring approach. In light of these results, we recommend using the APA scoring approach to derive domain scores.

Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.

The present study investigated the predictive validity of Criterion A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) compared to the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) model in predicting patient outcomes 1 year after initial assessment, in a hetero-method longitudinal design. A clinical sample of 84 participants were administered both traditional Section II and AMPD interviews by two independent interviewers. One year after assessment, disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) and symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory) were assessed. The Section II PD model did not predict disability (R² = .01) nor symptom severity (R² = .03). The AMPD model, on the other hand, predicted both disability (R² = .23) and symptom severity (R² = .29) 1-year postinitial assessment. Both Criterion A and B were significant predictors, but when jointly combined only Criterion A remained significantly predictive of both disability and symptom severity while Criterion B did not. Criterion A thus appears to capture core vulnerabilities of personality-disordered patients that are related to future functioning and symptom severity. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

A new performance-based measure of personality functioning impairment: development and preliminary evaluation of reliability and validity

Personality functioning impairment is at the center of many dimensional models of personality. Available measures of personality functioning impairment are limited to self-report, clinician-/informant-rated, and interview methods. Although researchers have begun investigating established performance-based instruments’ potential for assessing personality functioning impairment, administration and scoring of these instruments is complex and the latent variables they measure diverge from personality functioning impairment as described in the ICD-11 and the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) of the DSM. We address this absence by developing and psychometrically evaluating the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Questionnaire-based Implicit Association Test (LPFS-qIAT). The LPFS-qIAT’s psychometric properties were evaluated across four studies, producing initial evidence supporting the new instrument’s reliability as well as its convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. As the first performance-based measure of personality functioning impairment that aligns with the AMPD and, to a degree the ICD-11, that is easily administered, scored, and interpreted, the LPFS-qIAT shows potential to become a valuable tool in both research and clinical practice.

An examination of the cross-cultural equivalence of the personality inventory for DSM-5 across Chinese and U.S. samples.

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) was designed to measure the personality traits of the alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD). It is comprised of 25 lower order facet scales. Factor analytic investigation of these scales has consistently recovered five factors corresponding to the trait domains of the AMPD. Most of these factor analytic studies, however, have been conducted in the United States and Western European countries and languages. Fewer studies have examined the factor structure of the PID-5 in East Asian countries; and no studies have examined whether the five-factor structure found in Western countries/cultures/languages is congruent with those from East Asia. In this study, we examine the PID-5 factor structure in adult community samples from the People's Republic of China (PRC; N = 233 [116 females], Mage = 35.88, range = 22-60) and the United States (N = 237 [118 females], Mage = 35.44, range = 22-60) using exploratory structural equation modelling and assess whether the factor structures across these samples are congruent using Tucker's congruence coefficient. A five-factor solution was an adequate-to-good fit in both samples. The factor structure obtained from the U.S. sample was congruent with the PID-5 normative sample factor structure. The compositional configuration of the factors in the five-factor structure in the PRC sample, however, showed poor congruence with the U.S. sample. A six-factor model proved to be a better fitting model in the PRC sample. We conclude that the PID-5 does not have factor structure equivalence across U.S. and Chinese cultures/languages. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Comparing the clinical utility of the alternative model for personality disorders to the Section II personality disorder model: A randomized controlled trial.

The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) has been extensively studied over the past decade, but to date there is no direct comparison of the clinical utility of the AMPD model relative to the Section II personality disorder (PD) model in an ecologically valid design. The current study examined the clinical utility of an AMPD-informed assessment procedure and Section II PD assessment procedure as assessed by both patients and clinicians in a randomized controlled trial. A sample of 119 patients were randomly assigned to either an AMPD or a Section II PD assessment procedure. At the end of the assessment, patients filled out questionnaires pertaining to clinical utility, satisfaction, motivation for treatment, and general experience of the assessment. Clinicians who subsequently started treatment with these patients also completed two clinical utility questionnaires. There were no significant differences between the AMPD and Section II PD assessment procedure on patients' reported clinical utility, motivation for treatment, satisfaction, and general experience of the assessment nor were there significant differences between the models on clinician reported clinical utility. Explorative analyses revealed that, for patients, a positive relationship with the assessor was predictive of experienced utility. This study shows no superiority of the AMPD in terms of clinical utility but suggests that the alliance with the assessor is a particularly salient factor in clinical utility. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Contribution of the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders to relationship satisfaction.

Personality is a central factor associated with relationship discord, conflicts, and separation, as well as with dyadic adjustment and relationship stability. The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) of the DSM-5 offers a hybrid model for understanding personality based on personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and pathological domains and facets (Criterion B). So far, few studies have integrated this model into the understanding of relationship quality. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the contribution of Criterion B to relationship satisfaction in individuals involved in an intimate relationship. We also explored the joint contribution of Criteria A and B, as well as their interaction effects, to relationship satisfaction. Participants were drawn from two clinical samples: patients with personality disorders (PD; N = 101) and clients consulting in private practice clinics (PPC; N = 350). They completed self-report questionnaires assessing relationship satisfaction and AMPD Criteria A (only for PPC sample) and B. Hierarchical regressions showed that, for the PD sample, the Detachment and Negative Affectivity domains, especially the pathological facets of Intimacy Avoidance and Separation Insecurity, explained 22.5% of relationship satisfaction's variance. For PPC clients, Detachment, Negative Affectivity, and Antagonism domains, and especially the pathological facets of Intimacy Avoidance, Anxiousness, and Grandiosity, contribute significantly to relationship satisfaction, explaining 14.8% of its variance. Criterion A elements did not evince incremental value to the regression models in the PPC sample, and no Criteria A and B interaction effects were found. Clinical implications as well as limitations of the study are discussed.