DSM-5 Model For Personality Disorders Research Articles

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.

Establishing Levels of Personality Functioning Using the Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO-R): a Latent Profile Analysis

Both the new ICD-11 and the latest Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders focus on self and interpersonal functioning as the central feature of personality pathology, also acknowledging that personality disorders are organized along a dimensional continuum of severity. This revised understanding is in line with long-standing psychodynamic conceptualisations of personality pathology, in particular Kernberg’s object relations model of personality organization. Despite existing evidence for the clinical utility of the derived Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO-R), empirical support for the identification of clear cut-points between the different levels of personality functioning is missing. For this purpose, a total of 764 adult participants were recruited across two clinical (outpatient and inpatient) settings (n = 250) and two non-clinical (university students and general community) samples (n = 514). Results from the mixture modeling suggested the existence of five groups across the clinical and non-clinical samples that covered: healthy personality functioning, maladaptive personality rigidity, and mild, moderate, and severe levels of personality pathology. All five indicators of personality organization were found to be reliable predictors of personality pathology. Of the five STIPO-R indicators, Aggression and Moral Values had the most discriminative power for differentiating between the Mild, Moderate, and Severe personality disorder groups. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Profiles of theory of mind impairments and personality in clinical and community samples: integrating the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders.

Deficits in theory of mind (ToM)-the ability to infer the mental states of others-have been linked to antagonistic traits in community samples. ToM deficits have also been identified in people with personality disorders (PD), although with conflicting evidence, partly due to the use of categorical diagnoses. The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) provides an opportunity for a more precise understanding of the interplay between ToM abilities and personality pathology. Therefore, the study aims to determine whether and how individuals with diverse ToM profiles differ regarding personality impairment (AMPD Criterion A) and pathological facets (AMPD Criterion B). Adults with PD (n = 39) and from the community (n = 42) completed tests assessing ToM skills and self-reported questionnaires assessing AMPD Criteria A and B. Hierarchical agglomerative and TwoStep cluster analyses were consecutively computed using scores and subscores from ToM tests as clustering variables. Multivariate analyses of variance were subsequently performed to compare the clusters on both AMPD Criteria. Five clinically and conceptually meaningful clusters were found. The most notable differences across clusters were observed for Intimacy and Empathy dysfunctions (Criterion A), as well as for the Deceitfulness, Callousness, and Hostility facets from the Antagonism domain and the Restricted affectivity facet from the Detachment domain (Criterion B). The results support the association between antagonistic personality facets and ToM deficits. However, clusters showing impairments in ToM abilities did not necessarily exhibit high levels of personality dysfunction or pathological facets, emphasizing that both constructs are not isomorphic. Nevertheless, specific profiles can help refine existing interventions to make them more sensitive and specific to the nature of ToM dysfunctions while considering personality functioning and facets.

There are no coincidences: Proposed usefulness of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders in the conceptualization of QAnon-related threats.

There are no coincidences: Proposed usefulness of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders in the conceptualization of QAnon-related threats.

Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the German Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (SIFS)

The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (SIFS) is a 24-item self-report questionnaire assessing personality functioning according to the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. We evaluated the German SIFS version in a total sample of 886 participants from Germany and Switzerland. Its factor structure was investigated with confirmatory factor analysis comparing bifactor models with two specific factors (self- and interpersonal functioning) and four specific factors (identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy). The SIFS sum and domain scores were tested for reliability and convergent validity with self-report questionnaires and interviews for personality functioning, -organization, -traits, -disorder categories, and well-being. None of the bifactor models yielded good model fit, even after excluding two items with low factor loadings and including a method factor for reverse-keyed items. Based on a shortened 22-item SIFS version, models suggested that the g-factor explained 52.9–59.6% of the common variance and that the SIFS sum score measured the g-factor with a reliability of .68–.81. Even though the SIFS sum score showed large test-retest reliability and correlated strongly with well-established self-report questionnaires and interviews, the lack of structural validity appears to be a serious disadvantage of the SIFS compared to existing self-reports questionnaires of personality functioning.

Investigating the overlap and predictive validity between Criterion A and B in the alternative model for personality disorders in DSM-5

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) consists of level of personality functioning (Criterion A) and maladaptive personality traits (Criterion B). The brief scale versions of these are understudied, while often being used by clinicians and researchers. In this study, we wanted to investigate the overlap and predictive validity of Criterion A and B. Participants (N = 253) were measured on level of personality functioning (LPFS-BF) and maladaptive personality traits (PID-5-BF), as well as internalizing outcomes such existential meaninglessness (EMS) and externalizing outcomes such as substance and behavioral addictions (SSAB). Data analysis was conducted with principal component analysis (PCA) and regression analyses. The results showed over 50% overlap between the brief versions of Criterion A and B, while Criterion B slightly outperformed Criterion A in outcomes of EMS and SSAB. We discuss the potential redundancy and usefulness of personality functioning and maladaptive personality traits.

Nature and Assessment of Personality Pathology and Diagnosis.

This article demonstrates the contribution of Otto Kernberg's object relations theory of personality pathology to the current understanding of the nature and assessment of personality pathology and diagnosis. The article introduces recent advances in psychiatric nosology and presents differing views on the meaning of the general severity criterion common to all personality pathology (i.e., level of personality functioning as described in criterion A of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders). Next, the significance of Kernberg's theory to recent nosological advances is discussed, with a focus on two important features: first, a definition of personality that goes beyond signs and symptoms to include structural motivational components, in the domains of self- and interpersonal functioning, that are common to all personality manifestations and that fulfill an intrapsychic, organizing function; second, identity formation and consolidation as the ultimate end point of healthy personality functioning. That these cornerstone features of Kernberg's theory, articulated more than 50 years ago, align with the most up-to-date conceptualization of personality pathology confirms that Kernberg's theory represents an idea whose time has finally come.

Empirical Developments in Transference-Focused Psychotherapy.

Transference-focused psychotherapy (TFP) is an empirically supported individualized psychotherapy for patients with borderline personality disorder. This review highlights its development and current status. A review of the theoretical background underpinning TFP and empirical advances in the development of TFP provide perspective. Otto Kernberg's object relations model of personality and its implications for assessment and diagnosis of personality disorders are described. The authors review the programmatic research that has been developed and has demonstrated the efficacy of TFP. In view of the empirical studies that have demonstrated the successful outcomes and processes of TFP for patients with borderline personality disorder, compared with other approaches, TFP has been applied to a broader range of difficulties related to patients' self-functioning and interpersonal functioning across the range of severities in personality pathology, consistent with the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. The authors discuss borderline personality organization in the context of interpersonal, neurocognitive, and self-regulatory dysfunction, including preliminary findings. The theoretical and empirical advances in TFP lead to future directions for research evaluating personality disorder and its treatment.

A DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 compatible measure for an early identification of personality disorders in adolescence-LoPF-Q 12-18 latent structure and short form.

The LoPF-Q 12–18 (Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire) was designed for clinical use and to promote early detection of personality disorder (PD). It is a self-report measure with 97 items to assess personality functioning in adolescents from 12 years up. It operationalizes the dimensional concept of personality disorder (PD) severity used in the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders and the ICD-11. In this study, we investigated the factorial structure of the LoPF-Q 12–18. Additionally, a short version was developed to meet the need of efficient screening for PD in clinical and research applications. To investigate the factorial structure, several confirmatory factor analysis models were compared. A bifactor model with a strong general factor and four specific factors showed the best nominal fit (CFI = .91, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .07). The short version was derived using the ant colony optimization algorithm. This procedure resulted in a 20-item version with excellent fit for a hierarchical model with four first order factors to represent the domains and a secondary higher order factor to represent personality functioning (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04). Clinical validity (effect size d = 3.1 between PD patients and controls) and clinical utility (cutoff ≥ 36 providing 87.5% specificity and 80.2% sensitivity) for detecting patients with PD were high for the short version. Both, the long and short LoPF-Q 12–18 version are ready to be used for research and diagnostic purposes.

Stalking perpetration through the lens of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders.

Emerging dimensional models of personality disorders such as the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) provide new opportunities to explore the associations between personality pathology and harmful interpersonal behaviours such as stalking perpetration. Two goals are pursued by this study: (a) To document associations between stalking, level of personality pathology, and pathological personality domains/facets; and (b) to determine the relative importance of maladaptive personality facets in the statistical prediction of stalking. Data from 1489 young adults (18-30 years old) from a community sample were analysed. Moderate positive significant correlations were found between stalking, level of personality pathology, and maladaptive personality domains. A clear gradient of severity of stalking behaviours was found across five severity degrees of personality pathology. Dominance analyses revealed that Deceitfulness was the most dominant statistical predictor in women. Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, a facet from the Psychoticism domain, made an important contribution in the prediction of stalking in men only. Impulsivity was a key predictor in both genders but more markedly in men. Results suggest that the AMPD represents a useful framework to study stalking perpetration. Identification of key personality predictors might prove relevant for identifying risk factors, underlying motives, and treatment targets for stalking perpetrators.

Object Relations Theory Model of Personality Disorders.

Contemporary models of the diagnosis and classification of personality disorders have diverged from the categorical diagnostic framework of the DSM system. One response to this movement can be found in the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), which uses dimensions of personality functioning, coupled with identification of dominant pathological traits, to define and classify personality disorders. By applying psychodynamic object relations theory to the AMPD, therapists can enrich the understanding and assessment of personality functioning and pathology as described in the AMPD.

Beyond defending or abolishing Criterion A: Comment on Morey et al. (2022).

In their target article, Morey et al. (2022) provided a comprehensive overview of research on Criterion A of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders over the past 10 years. Although this overview is undoubtedly informative and helpful, it offers little guidance on both certain weaknesses of Criterion A and research gaps and needs. A structural reason for this could be that the scientific field is divided into 2 camps with respect to Criterion A: Some authors focus mainly on confirmatory results and want to defend Criterion A in its current form, whereas others take the same results as an opportunity to call for its abolition. In this situation, there is little room for a nuanced and constructive discussion of the empirical and conceptual strengths and weaknesses of Criterion A. In this commentary, I use 2 examples to illustrate what research aimed at revising Criterion A might look like. From an empirical point of view, studies that take into account the peculiarities of the latent structure of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale are important because they can reveal local misspecification and challenges for the assessment of single cases. From a conceptual point of view, a more consistent definition of Criterion A in terms of impairments in "capacities" could allow for a more coherent distinction from maladaptive "traits." This commentary hopes to strengthen a discourse that moves beyond the alternatives of defense or abolition toward the concrete improvement of Criterion A. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Differences in personality functioning impairment in mood, anxiety, and personality disorders: a cluster analysis

BackgroundThe Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders and the latest eleventh version of the International Classification of Diseases implement the level of impairment in self and interpersonal personality functioning (Level of Personality Functioning Scale - LPFS) as a core feature of personality pathology. However, some studies have indicated that personality functioning is also impaired in other mental disorders, but a more thorough exploration is missing. Thus, this study aims to develop profiles of levels of personality functioning in people with personality disorders and some other psychiatric diagnoses as well as without diagnosis.MethodsOne-hundred-forty-nine people participated in the study. They came from three groups – healthy controls (n = 53), people with personality disorders (n = 58), and people with mood and anxiety disorders (n = 38). The LPFS was assessed by the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1). An optimal clustering solution using agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis was generated to represent profiles of personality functioning.ResultsThe two patient groups showed significantly higher levels of personality functioning impairment than healthy controls. People with personality disorders showed higher levels of impairment than the other groups. In addition, the clustering analysis revealed three distinct profiles of personality functioning.ConclusionsThe impairment of personality functioning seems to be useful in the clinical assessment of other than personality disorders as well. As the resulting clustering profiles suggest, LPFS can be seen as an overall indicator of the severity of mental health difficulties and the presence of mental disorders symptoms. The LPFS provides valuable and detailed information about the individual’s mental health and can thus serve as a broad basis for case formulation, treatment and therapy planning, and prognosis.

Preliminary Steps Toward Extracting the Specific Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Diagnoses From Criteria A and B Self-Reports

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) retains six specific personality disorders (PDs) that can be diagnosed based on Criterion A level of impairment and Criterion B maladaptive facets. Those specific diagnoses are still underresearched, despite the preference expressed by most PD scholars for a mixed/hybrid classification. This study explores the possibility of using Criterion A and B self-report questionnaires to extract the specific AMPD diagnoses. Plausible prevalence estimates were found in three samples (outpatient PD, private practice, community; N = 766) using the facet score ≥ 2 and t score > 65 methods for determining the presence of a Criterion B facet; diagnoses had meaningful correlations with external variables. This study provides evidence-albeit preliminary-that the extraction of the specific AMPD PDs from self-report questionnaires might be a viable avenue. Ultimately, it could promote the use and dissemination of those diagnoses for screening purposes in clinical and research settings.

Implementation of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 Dimensional Models of Maladaptive Personality Traits Into Pre-bariatric Assessment.

Background: Personality pathology does not have to be a contraindication to a bariatric surgery if a proper pre-surgical assessment is done. Indicating subgroups of patients with their specific needs could help tailor interventions and improve surgical treatment outcomes.Objectives: Using the Alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 model for PDs to detect subgroups of patients with obesity based on a specific constellation of maladaptive personality traits and the level of overall personality impairment.Methods: 272 consecutively consented patients who underwent a standard pre-surgical psychological assessment. The majority were women (58.0%), age range was 22–79 years (M = 48.06, SD = 10.70). Patients’ average body mass index (BMI) was 43.95 kg/m2. All participants were administered the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) from which Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report (LPFS-SR) and Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD) scores were gained using the “crosswalk” for common metric for self-reported severity of personality disorder. The k-means clustering method was used to define specific subgroups of patients with obesity and replicated for equality testing to the samples of non-clinical respondents and psychiatric patients.Results: The cluster analysis detected specific groups in the sample of patients with obesity, which differed quantitatively from the samples of non-clinical respondents and psychiatric patients. A vast majority of patients with obesity showed above-average values in most of the PID-5 facets compared to the United States representative general community sample. In two out of the three clusters defined, patients demonstrated moderate (> M + 1.5 × SD) to severe (> M + 2.0 × SD) personality psychopathology within the Detachment and Negative Affectivity domains according to PID-5, which in one of the clusters corresponded to the mild overall impairment in both, LPFS-SR (M = 2.18, SD = 0.27) and SASPD (M = 8.44, SD = 2.38). Moreover, higher levels of psychopathology prove to be associated with higher age and use of psychiatric medication.Conclusions: The dimensional DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models are suitable procedures for defining specific “characters” of patients in a pre-bariatric setting. As such, they help to identify subgroups of patients with obesity who are different from general population and psychiatric patients. Implications for clinical practice and further research are discussed.

Dimensional Model of Personality Disorder Incorporated Into ICD-11

Dimensional Model of Personality Disorder Incorporated Into ICD-11

Attachment, Mentalization, and Criterion B of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD)

BackgroundThe mentalization theory posits that interpersonal difficulties and maladaptive personality traits develop from an insecure attachment pattern with one’s caregiver and corresponding deficits in mentalizing—the ability to understand others’ and one’s own mental states. Mentalizing deficits have been theorized as the basis for all psychopathology, with the paradigmatic case being Borderline Personality Disorder. Nevertheless, developments in the personality field indicate personality pathology is best represented dimensionally, and such a proposal was outlined by the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Despite evidence linking the mentalization theory to personality disorders, however, it has yet to be applied to Criterion B of the AMPD. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the moderating role of mentalizing in the relation between attachment and Criterion B maladaptive trait function in a sample of undergraduates. We hypothesized a model in which: (1) attachment insecurity would be positively associated with the Negative Affectivity, Antagonism, and Disinhibition personality domains; (2) mentalizing ability would be negatively associated with these domains; and, (3) there would be an interaction effect between attachment and mentalizing when predicting these same domains.MethodsPersonality domains were measured dimensionally via the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5-SF), while the dependence and avoidance domains of attachment were assessed via the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ). Mentalizing ability was tapped by the Movie for the Assessment of Social Cognition (MASC). The AMPD personality domains and trait facets were examined as dependent variables; attachment dependence, attachment avoidance, and overall mentalizing ability were entered as independent variables; and interaction terms between mentalizing and each attachment dimension were used to test moderation via MANCOVAs.ResultsConsistent with expectations, results indicated overall mentalizing moderated the relation between attachment avoidance and Negative Affectivity. Posthoc analyses revealed similar effects on the relations between attachment avoidance and the Emotional Lability, Hostility, and Perseveration trait facets; however, there were no significant moderation findings related to attachment dependence.ConclusionsThese results support the mentalization theory’s application to Criterion B of the AMPD, particularly in relation to the links between Negative Affectivity and borderline-related traits, and encourage future research of dimensional maladaptive personality. They further bolster support for understanding maladaptive personality as a dimensional construct.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Are Psychodynamic Theories and the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders Finally Going to Meet?

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is the new borderline personality disorder of our current era. There have been recent developments on narcissism that are certainly worthwhile examining. Firstly, relational and intersubjective psychoanalysts have been rethinking the underlying concepts of narcissism, focusing on the development of self and relations to others. Secondly, in the DSM-5, the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) was presented for a dimensional evaluation of the severity of personality disorder pathology. The combined dimensional and trait conceptualization of NPD opened the door to new integrated diagnostic perspectives, including both internal and interpersonal functioning. Finally, Pincus and Lukowitsky encourage clinicians to use a hierarchical model of pathological narcissism, as it opens up opportunities for shared points of interest in empirical research from different scholarly perspectives. As for most non-psychodynamic clinicians and researchers the DSM-5 clearly bears dominant weight in their work, we will take the AMPD model for NPD as our point of reference. We will discuss the narcissist's unique pattern of self-impairments in identity and self-direction, and of interpersonal disfunctioning (evaluated by assessing empathy and intimacy). Subsequently, we will examine how contemporary psychodynamic theories and the hierarchical model of Pincus and Lukowitsky additionally inform or contradict the AMPD. For us, one of the big advantages of the AMPD is the use of structured clinical evaluations of disturbances of the self and interpersonal functioning and the dimensional evaluation of severity. As psychodynamically oriented therapists, we are enthusiastic about the opportunities for inclusion of psychodynamic concepts, but we also discuss a number of sticking points.

Evaluating borderline personality disorder traits in the context of an intimate partner violence intervention programme

ABSTRACT Research has demonstrated a clear association between Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) perpetration, but an association with IPV intervention programme drop-out and recidivism has not been directly examined. In the current study, we examined associations between self-reported BPD symptomology and self-reported IPV perpetration variables, IPV intervention programme outcome, and recidivism. An additional goal was to compare traditional DSM-5 BPD with the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) dimensional trait perspective. For this purpose, we used archival data of 531 men in a court-ordered group IPV intervention programme. Results indicated that IPV offenders with BPD symptomology were of increased risk for failing to complete IPV treatment and were more likely re-offend in a one year follow up period, thus providing further support for the relevance of personality pathology in relation to IPV treatment success. Overall both ‘traditional’ BPD and AMPD BPD-relevant trait dimensions were shown to be approximately equally associated with self-report IPV variables, IPV treatment outcomes, and recidivism, with minor advantages for each BPD model for different outcome variables. Regardless of perspective, our findings indicate that BPD symptoms and traits are important for clinicians to consider in the treatment and risk assessment of IPV offenders.

Latent profiles of patients with borderline pathology based on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

BackgroundThere have been multiple attempts to try to parse out heterogeneity within borderline pathology by identifying patient subtypes; thus far, these works have yielded few consistent results. Recent developments in the operationalization of borderline pathology may provide new opportunities to identify clinically and conceptually meaningful subgroups of patients. The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) offers a categorical-dimensional operationalization of Borderline personality disorder (BPD) that has yet to be tested for identification of patient subgroups. The purpose of the present study is to test whether the combination of the Criterion A elements (pertaining to level of severity) and the seven pathological facets from Criterion B that define BPD in the AMPD can yield meaningful patient profiles.MethodsA total of 211 outpatients from a specialized PD treatment program (133 women, Mage = 33.66, SD = 10.97) were selected based on the presence of at least moderate borderline pathology according to cutoffs recently proposed for the Borderline Symptom List-23. Valid Criterion A (Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Faceted Brief Form) self-reports were administered to measure elements and facets that define BPD in the AMPD model; these variables were used as indicators in a latent profile analysis (LPA).ResultsThe optimal solution generated by LPA yielded four distinct profiles: (a) Borderline traits; (b) Moderate pathology with Impulsivity; (c) Moderate pathology with Identity problems and Depressivity; and (d) Severe pathology. Clinically meaningful distinctions emerged among profiles on AMPD indicators and external variables relevant to PD, especially aggression and impulsivity.ConclusionsProfiles reflected both the “severity” and “style” components imbedded within Criterion A and B of the AMPD, as they were mainly distinguished by a continuum of severity but also by some meaningful qualitative differences that may have important clinical implications for treatment planning and contracting. Results also suggest that the four Criterion A elements have independent value to identify important differences in patients with borderline pathology. They also highlight that some Criterion B facets that define BPD in the AMPD may be especially important to identify subgroups of patients, mainly Impulsivity and Depressivity.