Classification Of Personality Disorders Research Articles

Gender bias of antisocial and borderline personality disorders among psychiatrists.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) challenge mental health professionals with similar maladaptive behaviors. However, these two disorders differ regarding available evidence-based treatments. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been criticized as being gender-biased diagnostic construct. The present study aimed to determine the gender bias of ASPD and BPD among Turkish psychiatrists. Three case vignettes were randomly presented as male or female to the psychiatrists online. The first case was a patient with schizophrenia case to confirm the participant's ability to diagnose. The second case was a patient with ASPD, and the third one was a patient with BPD. Two hundred fifty participants diagnosed the first case correctly (n = 250). The results with statistical significance demonstrated that a female case with ASPD was 5.1 times more likely to get misdiagnosed than a male case with ASPD (p˂0.0001). Categorical classification of personality disorders in DSM leads to gender bias in in the diagnosis of ASPD and BPD. The present study shows that female cases with ASPD are misdiagnosed as BPD which may result in treatment attempts without evidence.

"Prototypic personality disorder" and the social issue: The category of psychopathy in Polish psychiatry in the interwar period.

The category of psychopathy has a long history, and its meaning has undergone a notable evolution since its conception in the 19th century. The history of psychopathy has been concentrating mainly on English- and German-speaking psychopathology. This article investigates definitions of psychopathy, its classification, and social issues associated with this category in Polish psychiatry in the interwar period. Polish definitions of psychopathy were influenced predominantly by Ernst Kretschmer's constitutional theory as well as by Eugen Kahn's, William Stern's, and Kurt Schneider's ideas. The term was generally understood as a borderline category denoting states between health and mental illness. As those states could manifest differently, it was thought to be many psychopathies. Two Polish psychiatrists, Maurycy Bornsztajn and Jakub Frostig, presented comprehensive classifications of psychopathies. Social issues associated with the category of psychopathy concentrated on three topics: psychopathy in children as a problem of the prevention of mental disorders; psychopathy as a problem of the justice system, the penitentiary, and military systems; and psychopathy as an issue of eugenics and social usefulness. Polish psychiatrists highlighted the need for the development of national institutions for the care of psychopathic children. Issues of accountability and insanity of psychopaths from the point of view of forensic psychiatry were also discussed. In conclusion, psychopathy in interwar Polish psychiatry was not just one of the personality disorders-it denoted the whole spectrum of characterological disturbances; thus, it rather corresponds to the modern category of personality disorders than to the contemporary understanding of psychopathy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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).

Manifestations of antisocial behavior in older adults: A review of current literature

IntroductionAntisocial behavior in older adults is a problem for their relatives and health care providers Antisocial behavior may present differently in the older population which makes it more difficult to diagnose adequately and apply therapeutic interventions. This literature review provides an overview of diverse conceptualizations of antisocial behavior in older adults and the way it affects recognizability of diagnostic categories and the applicability of interventions.ObjectivesTo gain insight into the various manifestations of antisocial behavior in older adults.MethodsA systematic review design was performed. In this review, an extensive manual and electronic literature search was conducted for papers published from 1980 to 2023. For this purpose we used the electronic databases PubMed and Embase. The review will include empirical and quantitative studies of older adults with antisocial behavior.ResultsThe results from the literature indicate that antisocial behavior does probably not decrease with age nor the burden on their social environment. Rather, the manifestations of antisocial behavior change as this population ages. Personality disorders are determined by several dimensional trait domains. The domains which are highly predictive for antisocial behavior include antagonism and disinhibition.ConclusionsThese findings challenge the notion of antisocial behavior decreasing with age. This review underscores the need to shift from traditional personality disorder categories to a dimensional trait perspective. Therefore, specific interventions are needed for older adults.Disclosure of InterestNone Declared

Measuring maladaptive personality traits with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Screening Questionnaire using a common metrics approach.

The classification of personality disorder (PD) is undergoing a paradigm shift in which categorically defined specific PDs are being replaced by dimensionally defined maladaptive trait domains. To bridge the classificatory approaches, this study attempts to use items from the categorical PD model in DSM-IV to measure the maladaptive trait domains described in DSM-5 Section III/ICD-11. A general population sample comprising 1228 participants completed the Screening Questionnaire of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II (SCID-II-SQ), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), and the anankastia scale of the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD). Using item response theory models and a psychometric linking technique, SCID-II-SQ items were evaluated for their contribution to measuring maladaptive trait domains. The best discriminating items were then selected to derive proxy scales. We found that convergent validity of these proxy scales was in a similar range to that of other self-report measures for PD, except for the proxy scale for PiCD anankastia. However, only the proxy scale for negative affectivity showed acceptable reliability that would allow its application in research settings. Future studies should seek to establish a common metric between specific PDs and maladaptive trait domains using self-report measures with higher specificity or semi-structured interviews.

Personality disorder coverage, prevalence, and convergence: do the DSM-5's two models of personality disorder identify the same patients?

Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) in DSM-5's Section-III has demonstrated acceptable interrater reliability, a largely consistent latent structure, substantial correlations with theoretically and clinically relevant measures, and evidence for incremental concurrent and predictive validity after controlling for DSM-5's Section II categorical personality disorders (PDs). However, the AMPD is not yet widely used clinically. One clinician concern may be caseness - that the new model will diagnose a different set of PD patients from that with which they are familiar. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether this concern is valid, by testing how well the two models converge in terms of prevalence and coverage. Participants were 305 psychiatric outpatients and 302 community residents not currently in mental-health treatment who scored above threshold on the Iowa Personality Disorder Screen (Langbehn et al., ). Participants were administered a semi-structured interview for DSM-5 PD, which was scored for both Section II and III PDs. Convergence across the two PD models was variable for specific PDs, Good when specific PDs were aggregated, and Very Good for 'any PD.' Results provide strong evidence that the AMPD yields the same overall prevalence of PD as the current model and, further, identifies largely the same overall population. It also addresses well-known problems of the current model, is more consistent with the ICD-11 PD model, and provides more complete, individualized characterizations of persons with PD, thereby offering multiple reasons for its implementation in clinical settings.

Can personality disorder be accurately assessed in older age? A differential item functioning analysis of ICD-11 inventories.

The contested categorical personality disorder (PD) criteria are not well suited to inform PD diagnoses in older adults. Yet, the classification of PDs is undergoing a critical transition phase with a paradigm shift to a dimensional approach for diagnosing PDs. No special attention was given to the expression of PDs in older age when the dimensional ICD-11 model was developed. Given that PDs are highly prevalent in older adults, there is an urgent need to examine if ICD-11 related instruments are able to adequately assess for PDs in older adults. The age-neutrality of ICD-11 measures was examined in a sample of 208 Dutch community-dwelling adults (N=208, M age=54.96, SD=21.65), matched on sex into 104 younger (age range 18-64) and 104 older (age range 65-93) adults. An instrument is considered not to be age-neutral if a collective large level of differential item functioning (DIF) exists in a group of items of an instrument (i.e., 25% or more with DIF). We therefore set out to detect possible DIF in the following ICD-11 self-report measures: the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD), the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), and the Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS). DIF analyses using a non-parametric odds ratio approach demonstrated that SASPD, PiCD, and BPS were age-neutral with less than 25% of items showing DIF. Yet, impact of DIF at scale level, examined by way of differential test functioning (DTF), indicated a DTF effect on the SASPD total score. These results of age-neutrality of the PiCD and BPS are promising for measuring ICD-11 traits and the borderline pattern. Yet, the age-neutral measurement of PD severity requires further research. With a rapidly aging population, its accurate assessment across the entire adult life span, including older age, is a prerequisite for an adequate detection of PDs.

Do We Need a Novel Framework for Classifying Psychopathology? A Discussion Paper.

The ICD-11 and DSM-5 are the leading systems for the classification of mental disorders, and their relevance for clinical work and research, as well as their impact for policy making and legal questions, has increased considerably. In recent years, other frameworks have been proposed to supplement or even replace the ICD and the DSM, raising many questions regarding clinical utility, scientific relevance, and, at the core, how best to conceptualize mental disorders. As examples of the new approaches that have emerged, here we introduce the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), systems and network approaches, process-based approaches, as well as a new approach to the classification of personality disorders. We highlight main distinctions between these classification frameworks, largely related to different priorities and goals, and discuss areas of overlap and potential compatibility. Synergies among these systems may provide promising new avenues for research and clinical practice.

The Influence of Personality Functioning and Pathological Traits on the Mental Well-being of Older Persons with Personality Disorders

Background:Why should you pay attention to personality pathology in geriatric psychiatry? To what extent is mental well-being determined by this? How does that relate to the influence of mental disorders? Does the Alternative Dimensional Model of Personality pathology (AMPD) as proposed by the DSM-5 provide more insight into this than the DSM-IV and DSM-5 categorical diagnoses of personality disorders?Method:These questions were examined in baseline data of 145 patients included in our randomized controlled trial (RCT) into group Schema therapy enriched with psychomotor therapy in older patients with a personality disorder (see Oude Voshaar in this symposium). Mental well-being was measured by a combination of psychological distress (53-item Brief Symptom Inventory), positive mental health (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale), assessment of own health (RAND-36), and satisfaction with life (Cantrill’s ladder). Personality pathology was assessed according to the categorical personality model using the Structured Clincal Interview for Personality Disorder (SCID-II) as well as the AMDP DSM-5 model using the Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP-short form) and the Personality Iventory for DSM-5 (PID-25). The relationship between personality pathology and mental well-being was investigated using multivariate regression analysis.Results:Three quarters of the included people with a personality disorder also had another psychiatric disorder (beyond personality pathology). However, personality pathology was found to be responsible for the bulk of the mental health burden and outweighed the influence of these psychiatric disorders. Personality dimensions were highly predictive of mental well-being. This contrasted with the absence of any influence from categorical personality disorders. Although dimensions of personality functioning – and in particular Identity Integration – were the primary predictors of mental well-being, pathological traits added significant predictive value (particularly Disinhibition and Negative Affectivity).Conclusions:Personality pathology seriously affects the mental well-being of patients and exceeds the impact of comorbid psychiatric disorders. Contrary to the assumption in the alternative DSM-5 and ICD-10 model, both personality functioning and pathological traits contribute to this impact on mental well-being. Screening and systematic assessment of personality pathology in geriatric psychiatry seems warranted.

The relationship between mood disorders, personality disorder and suicidality in adolescence: does general personality disturbance play a significant role in predicting suicidal behavior?

IntroductionCurrent research points to the importance personality pathology and Major Depression e as relevant psycopathological risk factors for understanding suicidal risk in adolescence. Literature has mainly focused on the role of BPD, however current orientations in personality pathological functioning suggest that BPD may be the representative of a general personality disturbance, a factor of vulnerability underlying diverse psychopathological variants and aspects of maladaptive functioning. However, recent studies seem to have neglected the contributions that other specific personality disorders and personality pathology as a general factor of vulnerability for suicidality; and only marginally investigated the interaction of personality disorder (PD) as an overall diagnosis and individual PDs and major depression (MDD).In this paper, the independent and cumulative effects of MDD and DSM-IV PDs on suicidal risk are investigated in a sample of adolescents observed in a longitudinal window of observation ranging from three months preceding the assessment to a six-month follow up period of clinical monitoring.MethodsA sample of 118 adolescents (mean age = 15.48 ± 1.14) referred for assessment and treatment on account of suicidal ideation or behavior were administered the CSSRS, SCID II, Kiddie-SADS at admission at inpatient and outpatient Units. All subjects included in the study had reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts at the C-SSRS; The CSSRS was applied again to all patients who reported further suicidal episodes during the six-months follow-up period of clinical monitoring. Dimensional diagnoses of PDs was obtained by summing the number of criteria met by each subject at SCID-%-PD 5, In order, to test the significance of the associations between the variables chosen as predictors (categorical and dimensional PDs and MD diagnosis), and the suicidal outcomes variables suicide attempts, number of suicide attempts and potential lethality of suicide attempt, non-parametric bivariate correlations, logistic regression models and mixed-effects Poisson regression were performed PD.ResultsThe categorical and dimensional diagnosis of PD showed to be a significant risk factors for suicide attempt and their recurrence, independently of BPD, that anyway was confirmed to be a specific significant risk factor for suicidal behaviors. Furthermore, PD assessed at a categorical and dimensional level and Major Depression exert an influence on suicidal behaviors and their lethality both as independent and cumulative risk factors.LimitationsBesides incorporating dimensional thinking into our approach to assessing psychopathology, our study still relied on traditionally defined assessment of PD. Future studies should include AMPD-defined personality pathology in adolescence to truly represent dimensional thinking.ConclusionThese results point to the importance of early identification of the level of severity of personality pathology at large and its co-occurrence with Major Depression for the management of suicidal risk in adolescence.

The New Hysteria: Borderline Personality Disorder and Epistemic Injustice

The diagnostic category of borderline personality disorder (BPD) has come under increasing criticism in recent years. In this paper, we analyze the role and impact of epistemic injustice, specifically testimonial injustice, in relation to the diagnosis of BPD. We first offer a critical sociological and historical account, detailing and expanding a range of arguments that BPD is problematic nosologically. We then turn to explore the epistemic injustices that can result from a BPD diagnosis, showing how they can lead to experiences of testimonial injustice which impede patient engagement in meaning-making activities, thereby undermining standard therapeutic goals. We conclude by showing how our arguments bolster ongoing efforts to replace the diagnostic category of BPD with alternatives such as complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

Societal costs of personality disorders among treatment-seeking patients in Norway: the relative contribution of specific DSM-5 categories.

Personality disorders (PDs) are associated with high levels of societal costs, regardless of whether a single PD or a broad range of PDs have been studied. However, research on the relative contribution of specific PD-types on societal costs is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the possible contributions of the individual DSM-5 categories of PDs on the level of societal costs and its components (health service costs and productivity loss), while controlling for the impact of comorbid mental health and substance use disorders on these outcomes. Participants (n = 798) were retrieved from the quality register of the Norwegian Network for Personality Disorders-a collaboration of PD-treatment units within specialist mental health services. The patients were referred to treatment in the time-period 2017-2020. Costs were assessed using a structured interview covering the 6-month period prior to assessment. Diagnoses were determined by semi-structured diagnostic interviews (SCID-5-PD and M.I.N.I.). Statistics included multiple regression analyses. The main result was that no specific PD had a unique contribution to the high level ofsocietal costsgenerally found among treatment-seeking patients with PDs. Borderline PD (BPD) was the only PD with significantly higher health service costs than the other PDs, while BPD, avoidant PD, and unspecified PD were independently associated with enhanced productivity loss. The differential cost-effects of specific PDs on the cost componentswere small. Several comorbid mental health and substance use disorders were significant contributors to costs, irrespective of PD status. The results underscore the importance of developing and implementing effective treatments for a broader range of PDs, to reduce the high levels of societal costs associated with all PDs.

Examining readmission factors in psychiatric emergency care for individuals with personality disorders: A 6-year retrospective study.

People with personality disorders (PDs) are often admitted to psychiatric emergency services due to the frequent repetition of acute crises. This study drew on the ICD diagnostic records of 2,634 individuals with PDs who were admitted to a specialized inpatient psychiatric crisis unit over a 6-year period. Multiple logistic regressions and survival regressions were performed to examine whether PD categories, gender, and other individual, interpersonal, and precipitating factors were associated with readmission and time-to-readmission. The results showed a 16.1% readmission rate. Of these, 99.5% of readmissions occurred within 4 years following the first admission. Gender was the main factor associated with both readmission and time-to-readmission: while men were readmitted faster, more women in total were readmitted for a second psychiatric emergency hospitalization. Findings also indicated that readmission rate and time-to-readmission differed following the category of PD: readmission rate in a ratio of 1-2 (from 8% to 10% for dissocial and paranoid PD up to 19%-21% for impulsive and borderline PD), and time-to-readmission in a ratio of 1-5 (from 1 month for anankastic and dependent, to 5 months for impulsive, histrionic and anxious-avoidant PD). Limitations of this naturalistic study include a lack of self-reported measures and generalizability to less specialized emergency settings. Future research should include a prospective longitudinal design using standardized scalable measurement tools to improve the completeness and accuracy of the data concerning the psychological processes involved in risk and time-to-readmission after brief hospitalizations in emergency psychiatry. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Evaluation of a 36-item measure of ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality disorder trait domains and facets in Russian inpatients.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) and International Classification of Diseases 11th revision (ICD-11) have introduced a new dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) classification that relies on the global level of PD severity and individual expressions of personality dysfunction in terms of specified trait domains (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, anankastia, and psychoticism). This study sought to evaluate the psychometric qualities of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait domains and facets in 570 Russian psychiatric inpatients using the Modified 36-Item Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and ICD-11 Brief Form Plus-Modified (PID5BF + M). The expected six-factor structure of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait domains was replicated using exploratory factor analysis. The six domain scores showed expected convergence with normal five-factor model scores, and the 18 subfacets showed acceptable scale reliability. Our findings overall support the psychometric properties of the six PID5BF + M domain scores and 18 subfacet scores covering both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5 trait models. Consequently, clinicians and researchers in Russian-speaking mental health services are now able to perform a combined and facet-level assessment of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models in a feasible and psychometrically sound manner. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Borderline, where are you? A psychometric approach to the personality domains in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11).

The inclusion of the borderline pattern in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) dimensional classification of personality disorders (PDs) has caused controversy. Unease about leaving out these clinically challenging patients seems to conflict with the need of an evidence-based and credible diagnostic system. However, the accommodation of borderline within the new diagnostic system has not yet been studied in depth. To this end, we examine in a sample of 1799 general population and clinical subjects the joint structure of the five initial ICD-11 domains and the borderline pattern. Regression and item-level factor analyses reveal that borderline criteria do not form a separate construct and are indissociable from negative affectivity. Furthermore, borderline adds nothing to the remaining domains when it comes to predict PD severity. The borderline pattern appears as largely superfluous and even misguiding, unless their criteria are properly integrated within the structure of personality pathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Cross-walking personality disorder types to ICD-11 trait domains: An overview of current findings.

The ICD-11 has adopted a classification of Personality Disorders (PD) that abolishes the established categorical PD types in favor of global severity classification with specification of individual trait domains. To facilitate and guide this profound transition, an overview of current research on empirical associations between established PD types and ICD-11 trait domains seems warranted. We identified a total of 9 relevant studies from 2018 to 2022, which were based on both clinical and community samples from U.S., China, Brazil, Denmark, Spain, Korea, and Canada. The patterns of associations with ICD-11 trait domains were systematically synthesized and portrayed for each PD type. Findings overall showed expected and conceptually meaningful associations between categorical PD types and ICD-11 trait domains, with only few deviations. Based on these findings, we propose a cross-walk for translating categorical PD types into ICD-11 trait domains. More research is needed in order to further guide continuity and translation between ICD-10 and ICD-11 PD classification in mental healthcare, including facet-level ICD-11 trait information. Moreover, the nine reviewed studies only relied on self-reported ICD-11 trait domains, which should be expanded with clinician-rated trait domains in future research. Finally, future research should also take ICD-11's essential PD severity classification into account.

Analysis of the Relationship between Higher-Order Factor Structure of Personality Disorders and the Five-Factor Model of Personality.

The growing body of evidence on the dimensional classification of personality disorders (PD) has resulted in its acceptance in the ICD-11 classification, which abolished categories and retains only a general description of PD. Specifying the type of PD is optional, and the suggested domains represent maladaptive variants of the five-factor model of personality (FFM). The aim of our study was to explore the existence of a joint structure between maladaptive and normal personality traits, and to investigate how these structures are integrated. The study included 223 patients who had been diagnosed with PD and completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders and the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R). To determine the degree of overlap between PD domains and NEO PI-R scales, a canonical analysis of covariance was conducted. Our findings showed a relationship between the internalizing PD spectrum (consisting of avoidant, dependent, and borderline traits with detached and anankastic traits) and high neuroticism, low conscientiousness, and moderately low agreeableness and extroversion, suggesting the existence of a broad personality disorder factor. However, the internalizing dimensions exhibited a more pronounced effect within this construct. Furthermore, we identified a second function that demonstrated a link between the externalizing PD spectrum (including narcissistic, histrionic, and antisocial traits) and high extraversion, high openness, and low agreeableness, suggesting the existence of an externalizing factor. Overall, our findings provide evidence for a joint structure of maladaptive and normal personality traits in a sample of personality disorders and emphasize the importance of integrating the FFM model in PD evaluation in clinical practice, suggesting that differentiating between major subgroups could assist in adjusting therapeutic approaches.

Bridging the ICD11 and the DSM-5 personality disorders classification systems: The role of the PID5BF + M.

In both the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) personality disorders (PD) are characterized by impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning which distinguish the various levels of dysfunction. Moreover, pathological traits are used by these classification systems to define the stylistic expression of personality dysfunction. Negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition feature as trait domains in each of these models. However, there are also differences between the two models, namely, in the psychoticism domain, which does not feature as a personality trait domain in the ICD-11, and in the anankastia domain, corresponding to compulsivity in the DSM-5, which was removed from the final AMPD model. Furthermore, facets are acknowledged by the DSM-5 within each trait domain, while this does not occur in the ICD-11. In view of the similarity between these classification systems, their harmonization would be beneficial for the clinical profession. With this goal in mind, the PID5BF + M, an algorithm that assesses the DSM-5 and ICD-11 six trait domains and 18 facets, was developed and has proven to adequately characterize the ICD-11 trait domains by means of DSM-5 trait facets. The current study compares a community sample (N = 280, M age = 48.01, 53.2% females) with a PD sample (N = 131, M age = 42.66, 45.0% females) along with the PID5BF + M, the LPFS-SR and the PID-5. Given that the PID5BF + M total can be seen as a measure of the level of personality dysfunction, strong relations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total are expected. Strong relations between the trait specifiers measured by the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 are also expected. Finally, the community and clinical samples are expected to differentiate by means of the dimensions assessed through the three afore-mentioned measures. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of associations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total and between the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 traits. Group differences were explored using the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples. As expected, there were strong, significant, and positive relations between the measures. Furthermore, higher scores were observed in all the variables for the PD group against the community group. Although this study has limitations, its findings sustain that the PID5BF + M has potential to assess the severity of personality disfunction and to characterize the stylistic features of PD as they are conceived by both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Although more research is needed regarding the convergent validity of the PID5BF + M, this new test contributes to the harmonization of both systems and to parsimony in the assessment of PD, which is the main objective of clinical practice.

Validating the German version of the Personality Disorder Severity-ICD-11 Scale using nominal response models.

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) features a new classification of personality disorders (PD), focusing on the severity of PD. Although there are numerous self-report measures that assess PD severity, to date only the Personality Disorder Severity-ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) is based on ICD-11's operationalization of PD. Initial results indicated that the PDS-ICD-11 measures a unidimensional construct, but the assumptions made for scoring its bipolar items had not been fully examined. The aim of this study is to fill this gap and investigate the latent structure of the German version of the PDS-ICD-11 using nominal response models (NRM), which allow for testing these assumptions. We applied the PDS-ICD-11 together with other self-report measures in a sample of 1,228 individuals from the general population. NRM indicated an acceptable fit of a unidimensional model, with only few deviations from the theoretically imposed scoring scheme. The total score was sufficiently reliable and correlated meaningfully with other self-report measures of PD severity. Regarding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and ICD-11 maladaptive trait domains, the total score was found to be most strongly associated with negative affectivity, whereas associations with antagonism and anankastia were small or nonsignificant. We conclude that the proposed scoring scheme of the PDS-ICD-11 items is acceptable, and the examined psychometric properties of the German version largely correspond to the results from the English-language development study. The total score, however, depicts more internalizing than externalizing personality pathology. Future studies should investigate the diagnostic efficiency of the PDS-ICD-11 scale using multiple methods and time points as well as clinical and forensic samples. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).