Dimensional Model Of Personality Disorder Research Articles

Two-year retest reliability and predictive validity of the Self- and Informant-Personality Inventory for ICD-11 in older adults.

The International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD-11) adopted a fully dimensional model of personality disorder. The Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD) and Informant-Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (IPiC) were developed to assess the ICD-11 trait model, and the PiCD has since received significant validation support. However, there has only been one prior study of longitudinal predictive validity of the PiCD, two relatively short test-retest reliability studies of the PiCD, and no prior longitudinal tests of the IPiC. Longitudinal psychometric support for psychological assessment measures is essential. The present study provides a longer, larger, 2-year psychometric validation test of the PiCD and IPiC. Participants (N = 711) and their informants (N = 569) were recruited in the St. Louis Personality and Aging Network. The results demonstrated strong 2-year retest reliability for the PiCD and IPiC, as well as mean-level stability. Additionally, we explored the relationships between the PiCD and IPiC and important life outcome measures (depressive symptoms, satisfaction with life, and health status). The analysis revealed several significant associations between PiCD and IPiC scales and the outcome variables across time. Further, the PiCD Negative Affectivity and IPiC Detachment scales demonstrated incremental validity over each other and the outcome variables at Wave 1 in the prediction of depressive symptoms and satisfaction with life, respectively. The findings provide essential longitudinal test-retest reliability and predictive validity support for the PiCD and IPiC. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

Contemporary integrative interpersonal theory in diagnosing relational dynamics in personality disorders

Accumulating empirical evidence suggests that despite some issues of clinical utility, dimensional models of personality disorders perform better than categorical ones. The aim of the paper was to present the contemporary integrative interpersonal theory (CIIT), which can become an extension of dimensional models by taking into account the pathomechanism and relational dynamics of personality disorders. Interpersonal situation, which is the field for the expression of personality pathology, is the basic unit of analysis of functioning in the presented approach. The interpersonal situation model is structured by the motives of causality and communality, and more precisely defined by the concept of four systems: self, affect, perception and behaviour. Personality pathology manifests itself through a combination of dysregulation and distortion in each system, and the coordinated pattern of motivation, perception, emotions and behaviours can be depicted as an interpersonal signature. The concept can be used to analyse internal and interpersonal relationships of an individual, as well as to monitor and diagnose the relational processes between the patient and the clinician. Using the presented theory in practice would increase the accuracy of conceptualisation by understanding an individual pathomechanism, including both external and internal relevant factors. Additionally, the interpersonal situation model can be a valuable tool to help identify and organise patient data.

Measuring personality functioning with the 12-item version of the OPD-Structure Questionnaire (OPD-SQS): reliability, factor structure, validity, and measurement invariance in the general population.

The assessment of personality functioning is at the core of current dimensional models of personality disorders. A variety of measures from different clinical and research traditions aim to assess basic psychological capacities regarding the self and others. While some instruments have shown reliability and validity in clinical or other selected samples, much less is known about their performance in the general population. In three samples representative of the German adult population with a total of 7,256 participants, levels of personality functioning were measured with the short 12-item version of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis - Structure Questionnaire (OPD-SQS). We addressed questions of factor structure, reliability, validity, factorial invariance, and provide norm values. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a satisfactory to good model fit. OPD-SQS models were mostly unaffected by variables such as gender, age, or measurement time. As expected, personality functioning was associated with general psychopathology as well as indices of occupational functioning. The OPD-SQS is a viable measure to assess personality functioning in the general population.

Borderline Personality Organization as an Aid in Differential Diagnosis.

There are subsets of patients whose presentations elude a precise diagnosis. All diagnoses are asymptotic to nature as they are constructs imposed on the world. Nonetheless, a greater degree of accuracy and precision is possible and beneficial for most patients. This is particularly true for patients with borderline personality organization (BPO) who present with psychotic symptoms. For the purposes of avoiding a misconstrual of the meaning of psychotic experiences in these patients, a brief synopsis of borderline personality organization, in contradistinction to borderline personality disorder, may prove to be of some clinical utility. The BPO construct presciently anticipates the trend toward a dimensional model of personality disorders and has the potential to enrich and inform these developments.

Diagnostic accuracy of severity measures of ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality disorder: clarifying the clinical landscape with the most up-to-date evidence.

With the implementation of new dimensional models of personality disorder (PD) in the DSM-5 and ICD-11, several investigators have developed and evaluated the psychometric properties of measures of severity. The diagnostic accuracy of these measures, an important cross-cultural metric that falls between validity and clinical utility, remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze and synthesize the diagnostic performance of the measures designed for both models. For this purpose, searches were carried out using three databases: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Studies that presented sensitivity and specificity parameters for cut-off points were selected. There were no restrictions on the age and gender of the participants nor on the reference standard used or the settings. Study quality and synthesis were assessed using QUADAS-2 and MetaDTA software, respectively. Twelve studies were eligible covering self-reported and clinician-rated measures based on the ICD-11 and DSM-5 PD severity models. A total of 66.7% of the studies showed a risk of bias in more than 2 domains. The 10th and 12th studies provided additional metrics, resulting in a total of 21 studies for evidence synthesis. Adequate overall sensitivity and specificity (Se = 0.84, Sp = 0.69) of these measures were obtained; however, the cross-cultural performance of specific cut-off points could not be assessed due to the paucity of studies on the same measure. Evidence suggests that patient selection processes should mainly be improved (avoid case-control design), use adequate reference standards, and avoid only reporting metrics for the optimal cut-off point.

Dimensional models of personality disorders: Challenges and opportunities.

Categorical models of personality disorders have been beneficial throughout psychiatric history, providing a mechanism for organizing and communicating research and treatment. However, the view that individuals with personality disorders are qualitatively distinct from the general population is no longer tenable. This perspective has amassed steady criticism, ranging from inconsequential to irreconcilable. In response, stronger evidence has been accumulated in support of a dimensional perspective that unifies normal and pathological personality on underlying trait continua. Contemporary nosology has largely shifted toward this dimensional perspective, yet broader adoption within public lexicon and routine clinical practice appears slow. This review focuses on challenges and the related opportunities of moving toward dimensional models in personality disorder research and practice. First, we highlight the need for ongoing development of a broader array of measurement methods, ideally facilitating multimethod assessments that reduce biases associated with any single methodology. These efforts should also include measurement across both poles of each trait, intensive longitudinal studies, and more deeply considering social desirability. Second, wider communication and training in dimensional approaches is needed for individuals working in mental health. This will require clear demonstrations of incremental treatment efficacy and structured public health rebates. Third, we should embrace cultural and geographic diversity, and investigate how unifying humanity may reduce the stigma and shame currently generated by arbitrarily labeling an individual's personality as normal or abnormal. This review aims to organize ongoing research efforts toward broader and routine usage of dimensional perspectives within research and clinical spaces.

Associations between physical health and the alternative model of personality disorders: A cross-sectional age study.

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) is a relatively new dimensional model of personality disorders (PDs) that assesses two diagnostic constructs: personality functioning and pathological personality traits. Thus far, research on the AMPD among older adults has been limited, but the research that does exist suggests limited generalizability to the unique biopsychosocial context of later life. To further examine the applicability of the AMPD to older adults, the purpose of this study was to examine relationships between the AMPD's two constructs with perceived physical health status among younger and older adult samples. Older adults (n = 222) and younger adults (n = 215) completed the Short Form-36 (SF-36), Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR), and Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF). Correlations and Fisher's z-tests revealed significantly stronger relationships between the SF-36 with the LPFS-SR and PID-5-BF domains for older adults than younger adults. Additionally, age group significantly moderated the relationships between personality functioning and pathological personality traits and health. The stronger relationships between health and the AMPD's constructs for older adults suggest meaningful overlap between negative health outcomes and PD pathology. Future research should further investigate specific mechanisms in which personality pathology negatively impacts health in older adults.

Assessment of personality disorder in the ICD-11 diagnostic system: Polish validation of the Personality Inventory for ICD-11.

This paper presents results of a study on the Polish adaptation of the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), which was developed to measure pathological traits under a new, dimensional model of personality disorders proposed in ICD-11. The study involved a non-clinical sample of N = 597 adults (51.4% female; Mage = 30.24 years; SD = 12.07 years). For convergent and divergent validity, Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) were used. The results showed the Polish adaptation of the PiCD to be reliable and valid. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for PiCD scale scores ranged from 0.77 to 0.87 (Mα = 0.82). The four-factor structure of PiCD items with the three unipolar factors, "Negative Affectivity", "Detachment", and "Dissociality", and one bipolar "Anankastia" vs. "Disinhibition" factor was conformed. All PiCD traits are related to PID-5 pathological traits and BFI-2 normal traits in an expected way both in correlational and factor analyses. Obtained data demonstrate satisfactory internal consistency, factorial validity, and convergent-discriminant validity of the Polish adaptation of PiCD in a non-clinical sample.

Multidimensional perfectionism and the ICD-11 personality disorder model

The International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) contains a dimensional model of personality disorder. Beyond general personality dysfunction, this model accommodates six personality descriptors depicting maladaptive personality characteristics. Perfectionism is a well-researched multidimensional personality disposition with strong links to psychological maladjustment. Yet, it is unclear how multidimensional perfectionism is conceptually and empirically represented in the ICD-11. In this questionnaire study, we assessed relations between the ICD-11 personality disorder model and perfectionism traits. In two community samples (NSample 1 = 293, NSample 2 = 308), all perfectionism traits, except other-oriented perfectionism, substantially correlated with the six ICD-11 personality descriptors and personality dysfunction. Additionally, two perfectionism traits displayed small incremental utility for explaining personality dysfunction beyond the ICD-11 personality descriptors. This study shows that perfectionism traits are related but not redundant to the ICD-11 personality descriptors. We discuss implications for the measurement and potential gradual refinement of the ICD-11 personality disorder model based on our findings and previous perfectionism research.

Anankastia or Psychoticism? Which One Is Better Suited for the Fifth Trait in the Pathological Big Five: Insight From the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits Perspective.

Both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5 (Section III) classification systems introduced dimensional models of personality disorders, with five broad domains called the Pathological Big Five. Nevertheless, despite large congruence between the two models, there are also substantial differences between them, with the most evident being the conceptualization of the fifth dimension: Anankastia in the ICD-11 vs. Psychoticism in the DSM-5. The current paper seeks an answer to the question of which domain is structurally better justified as the fifth trait in the dimensional model of personality disorders. For this purpose, we provided both a conceptual and empirical comparison of the ICD-11 and the DSM-5 models, adopting the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits—a comprehensive model of personality structure built on the basis of the higher-order factors of the Big Five—as a reference framework. Two studies were conducted: the first on a sample of 242 adults (52.9% female; Mage = 30.63, SDage = 11.82 years), and the second on a sample of 355 adults (50.1% female; Mage = 29.97, SDage = 12.26 years) from the non-clinical population. The Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), and the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits Questionnaire–Short Form (CPM-Q-SF) were administered in both studies, together with the PID-5BF+M algorithm for measuring a common (ICD-11 + DSM-5) six-domain model. Obtained empirical findings generally support our conceptual considerations that the ICD-11 model more comprehensively covered the area of personality pathology than the DSM-5 model, with Anankastia revealed as a more specific domain of personality disorders as well as more cohesively located within the overall personality structure, in comparison to Psychoticism. Moreover, the results corroborated the bipolar relations of Anankastia vs. Disinhibition domains. These results also correspond with the pattern of relationships found in reference to the Big Five domains of normal personality, which were also included in the current research. All our findings were discussed in the context of suggestions for the content and conceptualization of pathological personality traits that flow from the CPM as a comprehensive model of personality structure including both pathological and normal poles of personality dimensions.

Dimensional personality impairment is associated with disruptions in intrinsic intralimbic functional connectivity.

Recently proposed alternative dimensional models of personality disorder (PD) place the severity of impairments in self and interpersonal functioning at the core of personality pathology. However, associations of these impairments with disturbances in social, cognitive, and affective brain networks remain uninvestigated. The present study examined patterns of resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) in a sample of 74 age- and sex-matched participants (45 inpatients with PD and 29 healthy controls). At a minimum, PD patients carried a diagnosis of borderline PD, although the majority of the sample had one or more additional PDs. rsFC patterns in the following networks were compared between groups and in association with dimensional personality impairments: default mode network (DMN)/core mentalization, frontolimbic, salience, and central executive. Further, the extent to which variation in rsFC was explained by levels of personality impairment as compared to typology-specific borderline PD symptom severity was explored. Relative to controls, the PD group showed disruptions in rsFC within the DMN/core mentalization and frontolimbic networks. Among PD patients, greater severity of dimensional self-interpersonal impairment was associated with stronger intralimbic rsFC. In contrast, severity of borderline PD-specific typology was not associated with any rsFC patterns. Disruptions in core mentalization and affective networks are present in PD. Higher intralimbic functional connectivity may underlie self-interpersonal personality impairment in PD regardless of diagnostic typology-specific PD symptoms, providing initial neurobiological evidence supporting alternative dimensional conceptualizations of personality pathology.

DSM-5 personality trait facets amongst child molesters: an exploratory comparison with other types of offenders

BackgroundDSM-5 provided a dimensional model of personality disorders which may be more clinically informative for the assessment and management of prisoners than a categorical one, as diagnoses of personality disorders alone cannot explain the type of violence. The role of DSM-5 personality facets is however understudied in child molesters, and no study compared these clinical features between individuals who have committed sex crime against children and those who have committed other types of crime. The present study compared DSM-5 personality trait facets between prisoners who had committed sex crime against children, prisoners who had committed property crime (i.e., robbery, fraud) and those who had committed crime against the person (i.e., homicide, assault or violence not implying a sexual element). A further aim was to explore which facets were associated with sex crime against children as compared with the other types of crime, controlling for socio-demographics (age, gender), psychiatric comorbidity (presence of any psychiatric diagnoses) and general psychopathy traits.MethodsOne hundred sixty-seven prisoners participated (91 had committed sex crime against children, 25 property crime, and 51 committed a crime against the person) and completed the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 and the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.ResultsPrisoners who had committed sex crime against children reported higher Restricted Affectivity traits than those who had committed property crime and crime against the person and higher Irresponsibility traits than those who had committed property crime. The results of a multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that on the one hand being a man, having a higher age, and the presence of a psychiatric comorbidity were more likely to be related to sex crime than property crime, on the other hand higher Irresponsibility personality traits, being a man, and the presence of a psychiatric comorbidity were more likely to be related to sex crime against children than crime against the person.ConclusionsThe Irresponsibility facet might be specific to child molesters and can differentiate this group from offenders who have committed other crime types. This facet might be considered a key target of a tailored assessment and treatment planning during clinical practice with child molesters.

In light of the DSM-5 dimensional model of personality: Borderline personality disorder at the crossroads with the bipolar spectrum

Background. State-of-the-art research highlights that borderline personality disorder (PD) and bipolar spectrum disorders have clinical characteristics in common, which imply uncertainty in differential diagnoses. Although there is a growing body of literature on the DSM-5 dimensional model of personality disorder, its discriminative features between these clinical samples are still understudied. In this study, we seek to identify the best set of predictors that differentiate between borderline PD and bipolar spectrum, based on pathological and normative personality traits and symptoms. Methods. A cross-sectional study of three clinical samples: 1) Borderline PD group of 63 participants; 2) Major depressive disorder group of 89 participants; 3) Bipolar disorder group of 65 participants. Self-reported assessment: Personality Inventory for DSM-5; Brief Symptom Inventory; FFM Inventory. A series of one-way ANOVAs and logistic regression analyses were computed. Results. The major set of data emerging as common discriminants of borderline PD across the bipolar spectrum are unusual beliefs & experiences, paranoid ideation, obsession-compulsion and extraversion. Depressivity (OR: 34.95) and impulsivity (OR: 22.35) pathological traits displayed the greatest predictive values in the differential diagnosis. Limitations. The small size of the samples; a lack of data from participants’ previous clinical history. Conclusions. Findings support the DSM-5 pathological traits as differentiating borderline PD through bipolar spectrum, and reinforcing the joint use of symptom-related pathological functioning and normal-range personality traits. Alongside the bipolar spectrum, borderline pathology sheds light upon a hypothetical overlap along the depressive and schizoaffective/schizophrenia spectra, representing a borderland space at a crossroads with the psychopathology of a meta-spectrum.

A Common Metric for Self-Reported Severity of Personality Disorder

Introduction: Dimensional models of personality disorders (PD) in the DSM-5 and ICD-11 share a focus on impairments in self and interpersonal functioning to represent the general features and severity of PD. This new perspective has led to the development of numerous measures for assessing individual differences in PD severity. While this improves choices for researchers and practitioners, it also poses the challenge of an increasing lack of standardization. Objective: The aim of this study is to establish a common metric across 6 widely used self-report measures of PD severity using item response theory models. Methods: 849 participants completed a survey including the Inventory of Personality Organization – 16-item version (IPO-16), the Level of Personality Functioning Scale – Brief Form 2.0, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale – Self-Report, the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis – Structure Questionnaire Short Form, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Brief Form Plus and the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD). We fitted exploratory multidimensional graded response models and used bifactor rotation to extract a general factor across measures. Factor scores were linked to representative T scores using data from a representative survey of 2,502 participants who completed the IPO-16. Results: When using bifactor rotation in a 7-factor model, all items loaded positively on the general factor, and the general factor explained 65.5% of the common variance. With the exception of the SASPD, all measures provided highly discriminating items (factor loadings >0.70) for measuring the general factor and reached an acceptable reliability (>0.80) across a wide range of the latent continuum. We constructed a crosswalk table linking total scores of the 6 measures to each other and to representative T scores. Conclusions: Our results suggest that 6 different self-report measures of the severity of PD capture a strong common factor and can therefore be scaled along a single latent continuum. Our results may facilitate instrument-independent assessment of severity of PD and increase comparability across studies.

The Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11: A facet-level assessment of the ICD-11 trait model.

The International Classification of Diseases-11th edition (ICD-11) includes a dimensional model of personality disorder assessing five domains of maladaptive personality. To avoid unnecessary complexity, the ICD-11 model includes assessment of personality traits only at the domain level. A measure exists to assess the domains of the ICD-11 model (the Personality Inventory for ICD-11), yet a more rich and useful assessment of personality is provided at the facet level. We used items from the scales assessing the five-factor model of personality disorder to develop the Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (FFiCD), a new 121-item, 20-facet, self-report measure of the ICD-11 maladaptive personality domains at the facet level. Further, the FFiCD includes 47 short scales organized beneath the facets-at the "nuance" level. Items were selected and evaluated empirically across two independent data collections, and the resulting scales were further validated in a third data collection. Correlational and factor analytic results comparing the scales of the FFiCD to the five-factor model, Personality Inventory for ICD-11, and Personality Inventory for DSM-5 supported the validity of the theoretical structure of the FFiCD and the ICD-11 model. The FFiCD may be a useful instrument for clinicians and researchers interested in a more specific assessment of maladaptive personality according to the dimensional ICD-11 personality disorder model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Personality profiles as potential targets for intervention: Identification and replication

The alternative dimensional model of personality disorder (PD) diagnosis, based on personality-functioning impairment and pathological traits, opens the door for tailoring treatments to individuals with more homogeneous personality profiles than diagnostic categories. Such a transdiagnostic PD treatment approach requires robust, replicable, personality-relevant dimensions, which we found using a large battery of self-report measures: Self-pathology and negative affectivity (NA) traits, interpersonal pathology and detachment traits, and interpersonal pathology and antagonism traits. Using these dimensions, we identified three groups that had, respectively, elevations on (1) all three dimensions, (2) self-pathology/NA (with/without interpersonal-pathology elevation(s)) and (3) either or both interpersonal-pathology dimensions, without elevated self-pathology/NA. Using the same personality-functioning measures and a half-overlapping trait set, we replicated these profiles in an additional sample. Interview-based measures of functioning and personality pathology provided external validity evidence for the method, suggesting it represents a critical first step towards treatment research targeting transdiagnostic processes rather than diagnoses. For example, two groups might benefit from treatments focused, respectively, on emotional dysregulation and interpersonal relations, whereas the multiple-problem group may need a sequenced treatment approach. Research is needed to test these hypotheses and to expand the method to include a wider range of pathological personality traits. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Comparing DSM–5-Hybrid, SWAP, and PDM prototype models of personality disorders: Convergent and divergent findings.

Although dimensional models of personality disorders are of great interest, there exist three methods by which personality disorders may be diagnosed for their fit to a predetermined prototype. In this study, we evaluate a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), hybrid model prototype match (modified from the original prototype DSM-5 proposal; Skodol, Bender, Morey, et al., 2011; Skodol, Bender, Oldham, et al., 2011), the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-2 (Shedler, 2015), and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual prototype match (PDM Task Force, 2006). Three hundred twenty-nine clinical psychology graduate students and interns rated patients they currently were treating with each of the aforementioned diagnostic models, as well as completing a checklist of their DSM-IV personality disorder symptoms. Matching a prototype was defined as being a very good match (exemplifying the disorder, a prototypical case) or a good match (has the diagnosis, disorder applies). Frequencies of the prototype assignments are reported. For the SWAP-2 and PDM, depressive and borderline personality disorders were most frequently assigned, whereas avoidant and borderline personality disorder were the most assigned prototypes for the DSM-5 hybrid categories. However, the degree of convergence across methods on similar diagnostic constructs was low. Implications of these findings for personality disorder diagnosis are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The General Criteria for Personality Disorders Assessed by Interview: Do They Still Have a Role to Play?

On the path to developing dimensional models of personality disorder (PD), we are at risk of leaving key diagnostic aspects behind. The general criteria for PD may be important ones because they reflect the defining aspects of personality pathology: long duration, independence from psychopathological states, and harmfulness. We assessed these criteria by interview in a sample of 362 psychiatric outpatients after administering the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+. The result was a 42.5% fall in self-reported endorsements, due to misinterpretations (11.5%), short duration of traits or contamination by state psychopathology (9.8%), and traits being non-harmful (21.2%). However, not all personality traits and disorders underwent correction to the same extent, and ultimately, the interview did not improve the prediction of clinical variables. These findings raise doubts about the practical relevance of the general criteria for PD and support the role of self-report questionnaires for diagnostic purposes.

Sex Differences in Personality Disorders.

This review aims to give an overview on the current literature on sex differences in personality disorders and to highlight the potential of dimensional approaches. Empirical findings on sex differences in personality disorders are inconsistent and appear to be highly dependent on study settings. Current studies have mainly focused on borderline and antisocial personality disorder and the question whether these are sex-specific representations of a common substrate. In general, sexes differ in the manifestation of personality disorders as well as in comorbidities. Criticism of the established categorical model led to an additional dimensional model of personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Investigations on sex differences in personality disorders are sparse and mainly limited to antisocial and borderline personality disorder. The introduction of a dimensional model offers the chance to re-think the construct of "personality disorder" and thereby also opens the possibility for a better understanding of sex differences.