Model For Personality Disorders Research Articles

Identity disturbance in dimensional and categorical models of personality disorder: The incremental value of self-rated identity and narrative identity.

Identity disturbance is increasingly considered to drive personality disorder (PD) onset. Previous research has investigated how identity relates to PD using either self-report scales or narratives to assess identity. Few studies have investigated how both operationalizations relate to one another and to models of PD. More so, no study has investigated whether a narrative identity assessment offers additional explanatory power in understanding PD, beyond what is captured by a self-rated identity assessment, or vice versa. We aimed to address these gaps by administering a rating scale measuring (mal)adaptive identity alongside a prompt to write a narrative about a turning point event to 331 individuals aged 18-30 (72.2% female, Mage = 22.56). Using this multimethod approach, we investigated (a) associations of narrative identity dimensions (agency, communion, exploratory processing) with self-rated identity, self- and interpersonal dysfunction, and symptoms of borderline and antisocial PD, and (b) whether these narrative identity dimensions could explain unique variance in self- and interpersonal dysfunction, and borderline and antisocial PD symptoms, above and beyond self-rated identity, and vice versa. Results revealed significant associations among narrative identity, self-rated identity, and models of PD. Furthermore, communion demonstrated incremental value in explaining PD features, beyond what was accounted for by self-rated identity. However, narrative identity did not offer additional explanatory power in understanding self- and interpersonal dysfunction, beyond self-rated identity. Self-rated identity showed incremental value in explaining all PD models, beyond narrative identity. These results emphasize the importance of employing different methodologies for assessing identity in elucidating how identity disturbance manifests in personality pathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Culture and ICD-11 personality disorder: Implications for clinical practice across diverse ethnic groups.

Personality disorder (PD) in ICD-11 is defined primarily by self and interpersonal dysfunction and optionally by other qualifiers. This definition is inseparable from relativism of cultural determinants. This review aimed to synthesize the relevant aspects of the influence of culture on clinical practice and health management for this condition, aligning them to the ICD-11 PD model. In Scopus, we systematically searched for studies that included the text strings: cultur* | personality AND (disorder* OR patholog*) without any restrictions on publication date or language or other exclusion criteria, up to November 2022. Evidence suggests that cultural variables in ethnic groups (Western and non-Western) such as the individualist/collectivist philosophy, historical/generational trauma, immigration, acculturation, religion, and gender influence the etiology, semiology, epidemiology, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and management of health services for ICD-11 PD. We discuss the limitations and propose future lines of research on this topic based on our knowledge and experience. In this review, we provide the scientific community and clinicians with relevant cultural information to guide their practice and propose strategies to manage PD from the ICD-11 model. More research is needed using mixed study methodologies on stigma, the experiences of patients, clinicians, and health agencies, to reduce the care gaps and achieve a culturally comprehensive, inclusive, and competent use of this new model.

Longitudinal prediction of psychosocial functioning outcomes: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Section-II personality disorders versus alternative model personality dysfunction and traits.

We aimed to determine and compare the longitudinal predictive power of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition's (DSM-5) two models of personality disorder (PD) for multiple clinically relevant outcomes. A sample of 600 community-dwelling adults-half recruited by calling randomly selected phone numbers and screening-in for high-risk for personality pathology and half in treatment for mental health problems-completed an extensive battery of self-report and interview measures of personality pathology, clinical symptoms, and psychosocial functioning. Of these, 503 returned for retesting on the same measures an average of 8 months later. We used Time 1 interview data to assess DSM-5 personality pathology, both the Section-II PDs and the alternative (DSM-5) model of personality disorder's (AMPD) Criterion A (impairment) and Criterion B (adaptive-to-maladaptive-range trait domains and facets). We used these measures to predict 20 Time 2 functioning outcomes. Both PD models significantly predicted functioning-outcome variance, albeit modestly-averaging 12.6% and 17.9% (Section-II diagnoses and criterion counts, respectively) and 15.2% and 23.2% (AMPD domains and facets, respectively). Each model significantly augmented the other in hierarchical regressions, but the AMPD domains (6.30%) and facets (8.62%) predicted more incremental variance than the Section-II diagnoses (3.74%) and criterion counts (3.31%), respectively. Borderline PD accounted for just over half of Section II's predictive power, whereas the AMPD's predictive power was more evenly distributed across components. We note the predictive advantages of dimensional models and articulate the theoretical and clinical advantages of the AMPD's separation of personality functioning impairment from how this is manifested in personality traits. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Self-directedness mediates the association of child abuse and neglect experiences with personality pathology

It is well established that the exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) may alter the the development of personality. Nevertheless, only a part of individuals exposed to ACEs actually develop Personality Disorders (PDs). According to the alternative model of PDs, impairments in dimensional self-aspects, i.e., Identity and Self-direction (SD), may represent potential candidates to promote the transition from ACEs to PDs. We analysed patients’ data from the A.T. Beck Institute of Rome (n = 626) to evaluate the ACEs and SD interplay in PDs patients using Cloninger’s Self-Directedness to assess their SD. First, we explored the presence of ACEs in patients affected by PDs. Secondly, we examined the association between ACEs and SD and subsequently how SD influences the severity of the PDs. Finally, since SD and ACEs were both associated to PDs, we wondered if SD could mediate the relationships between ACEs and PDs. Results evidenced a partial competitive mediation effect of SD on the relationship between child abuse and neglect and the number of PDs. In agreement with the AMPD, Self-functioning dimension may represent a main target for psychotherapeutic intervention.

Clinical Staging for Personality Disorders in Older Adults.

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

Competing Models of Personality Disorder: Relations With Psychosocial Functioning.

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

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.

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

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

Convergence between the dimensional PD models of ICD-11 and DSM-5: a meta-analytic approach.

In the current diagnostic systems, the International Classification of Diseases-11th rev. (ICD-11) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th ed. (DSM-5), the evaluation and diagnosis of personality disorder (PD) aim at dimensional examination of the severity of its dysfunction and the stylistic features that accompany it. Since their implementation, or even before, several measures have been developed to assess PD severity and traits in both models. Thus, convergent validity metrics have been reported with various PD measures; however, the convergence of the same constructs included in the measures of these two models remains undefined. The objective of the present review was to examine whether there is a sufficient relationship between PD measures of the ICD-11 and DSM-5 AMPD in the general population. For this meta-analytic review, systematic searches were conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We included studies that reported Pearson's r correlations without restrictions on language, age, sex, setting, type of sample, or informant of the measures. We excluded associations with anankastia, psychoticism or the borderline pattern because they were not comparable between one dimensional model and the other. We examined the quality of the evidence with the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies, and performed the random effects meta-analysis with the 'meta' package of the RStudio software. Of the 5,629 results returned by the search, 16 studies were eligible; and showed moderate quality. The risk of bias was manifested by not specifying the details of the sample, the recruitment environment, and the identification and control of confounding factors. Thirteen studies provided two or more correlations resulting in a total of 54 studies for meta-analysis. The overall effect size estimate (correlation) was moderate for the overall model (r = 0.62, 95% CI [0.57, 0.67], p < 0.0001, I2 = 97.6%). For the subgroup of associations, ICD-11 severity model and DSM-5 AMPD severity model, the correlation was also moderate (k = 10, r = 0.57, 95% CI [0.48; 0.66]; I2 = 92.9%); as for the subgroup of associations, ICD-11 traits model and DSM-5 AMPD traits model (k = 44, r = 0.63, 95% CI [0.57; 0.69], I2 = 97.9%). The convergent validity between measures of PD severity and traits between one diagnostic system and another has been demonstrated in this review and they can probably be used interchangeably because they also measure the same constructs. Future research can address the limitations of this study and review the evidence for the discriminant validity of these measures.

Clinical supervision over complex cases of personality disorders according to metacognitive interpersonal therapy

Treating patients with Personality Disorders (PDs) means dealing with what are often referred to as complex cases. The complexity of cases stems from several variables and in particular: the high percentage of diagnostic co-occurrences, patients' difficulty in reflecting on their own and others' mental states (i.e., metacognitive impairments), and the strong emotional pressure experienced by therapists. All this results in difficulties in building the therapeutic alliance and high drop-out rates. For these reasons, therapists often need supervision, with a more experienced therapist or even among peers. This article proposes the structured supervision model according to Metacognitive Interpersonal Therapy (MIT), which is an evidence-based treatment model for PDs.

Impairments in Cognitive and Emotional Empathy as Markers of General versus Specific Personality Pathology

Introduction: The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 5th edition (DSM-5) considers impairments in empathy a basic feature of personality disorders (PDs). In contrast, the AMPD pathological personality trait model and the categorical DSM-5 Section II PD model associate deficits in empathy to specific forms of personality pathology. The present study investigated to what extent impairments in cognitive and emotional empathy are markers of general versus specific personality pathology. Methods: In a clinical sample (n = 119), the Multifaceted Empathy Test was used to assess cognitive empathy, emotional empathy for positive emotions, and emotional empathy for negative emotions. Personality functioning, pathological personality traits, and DSM-5 Section II PDs were assessed via interviews and self-reports. Confirmatory factor analyses were applied to associate the three empathy facets with the three personality pathology approaches, each modeled with general personality pathology (common factor) and specific personality pathology (residuals of indicators). Results: Impairments in cognitive empathy and emotional empathy for positive emotions were significantly correlated with general personality pathology. All three empathy facets were also correlated to specific personality pathology when controlling for general personality pathology, respectively. Impairments in cognitive empathy were incrementally associated with identity and empathy (personality functioning), psychoticism (pathological personality traits), and paranoid and dependent PD (DSM-5 Section II PDs). Deficits in emotional empathy for positive emotions were incrementally associated with self-direction and intimacy (personality functioning) and detachment (pathological personality traits). Impairments in emotional empathy for negative emotions were incrementally associated with antagonism (pathological personality traits) and antisocial PD (DSM-5 Section II PDs). Conclusion: The results suggest that impairments in cognitive empathy and emotional empathy for positive emotions, but not for negative emotions, are markers of general personality pathology, while deficits in the three empathy facets are also markers for specific personality pathology.

A Bridge Between DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorder Criteria and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Trait Domains.

The organization of personality pathology into trait domains (vs. specific disorders) in ICD-11 represents an important shift in personality disorder (PD) nosology. However, to facilitate clinical implementation, a bridge is needed between this system and the DSM-5 Section II system familiar to many researchers and clinicians. In this study, individual DSM-5 PD criteria were assigned to ICD-11 trait domains based on the published Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements. This scoring scheme was examined empirically alongside DSM-5 PD dimensions (using SIDP ratings from the MIDAS project; N = 2,147 outpatients) in terms of descriptive properties and relations with psychosocial morbidity and functioning. Most PD criteria could be matched to at least one ICD-11 trait domain, indicating considerable cross-system continuity. However, points of incongruity are noteworthy for research and clinical applications. Results provide key information for bridging categorical and dimensional frameworks, indicating that the shift toward trait-based PD models need not be as disruptive as feared.

Is a brief screen for personality disorder clinically useful for the detection of impairment in personality functioning in adolescents?

The Standardized Assessment of Personality-Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS) has been used extensively to screen for personality disorders (PD), including adolescents. Yet, it is unclear how well the SAPAS performs in screening for impairment in personality functioning (IPF), Criterion A of the alternative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition model for PD (AMPD) in adolescent samples. We examined the performance of the SAPAS in detecting IPF at a diagnostic threshold for PD in the AMPD. A consecutive clinical sample of adolescents in Bern, Switzerland (N = 293), were first administered the SAPAS, then the Semistructured Interview for Personality Functioning Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (STiP-5.1). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the SAPAS in relation to the STiP-5.1. ROC regression analyses were conducted to determine if other variables moderated the discriminant performance of the SAPAS. Internal consistency of the SAPAS was low (α = .54) and overall discriminatory accuracy was moderate (area under the curve = .73). The optimum cut-off point was 5, with the best balance of sensitivity and specificity (63.22 and 69.90, respectively), correctly classifying 67.92% of participants. Agreement between the SAPAS and the STiP-5.1 using this cut-off was low (κ = .30). Age yielded statistically significant effects on the discriminant performance of the SAPAS-performance improving among older adolescents. Findings suggest that the SAPAS may not be the optimal method of screening for Criterion A IPF among adolescents in clinical settings but might also be more suited to Criterion B. Our findings call for a developmentally adapted screener for early detection of PD represented by IPF in adolescents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Level of identity diffusion in patients with borderline, narcissistic, avoidant and other specified personality disorder

Traditional conceptions of personality disorder (PD) view severe identity disturbance as a defining characteristic of borderline personality disorder (BPD). In the alternative DSM-5 model for PDs (AMPD) and in the outlined substantial changes to PD diagnostics in ICD-11, disturbances in self and identity are elevated from a specific diagnostic criterion for BPD to a defining criterion for PD in general. In line with Kernberg’s theory of personality organization (PO), it is expected that although identity disturbance may be characteristic of most or all PDs, severe identity diffusion is a more pronounced and defining characteristic of BPD and possibly other PDs organized on a borderline level (BPO). Here, we examined the level of identity disturbance in SCID-diagnosed patients with BPD, narcissistic PD (NPD), avoidant PD (AVPD), comorbid BPD with NPD and AVDP, as well as other specified PD (PD-OT). We found that measures of identity diffusion were higher in BPD and NPD patients compared with patients diagnosed with AVPD. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that number of SCID criteria met for BPD and NPD predicted level of identity diffusion when gender, age and general symptomatology were controlled for, whereas number of SCID criteria met for AVPD did not. The presented data support severe identity diffusion as a prominent characteristic of BPD with possible implications for how we should differentiate BPD from other PDs. The findings are discussed in relation to Kernberg’s model and the AMPD.

Changes in the classification of personality disorders: Comparing the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder model to the alternative model for personality disorders using structured clinical interviews.

The current study examined the continuity of personality disorder (PD) diagnoses from Section II to Section III (alternative model for personality disorders [AMPD]) when using structured interviews. We investigated the continuity both in terms of stability of prevalence rates and in terms of convergent validity. A clinical sample of 189 participants were concurrently administered both Section II PD and AMPD interviews for diagnosing PD by 2 independent interviewers. Stability of prevalence between the models for specific PD diagnoses was generally supported. A higher prevalence of trait-specified PD in the AMPD model resulted in higher prevalence of PD in general when using the AMPD model compared with the Section II PD model. Correlations between matching criterion counts according to both models were generally high. Convergence between the Section II PD and AMPD model categorical diagnoses was adequate for the most frequently diagnosed and studied PDs (i.e., avoidant-, borderline-, and antisocial PD), but lower than previously found, likely due to the stringent test-retest design used in this study. Convergence between the models for narcissistic and obsessive-compulsive PD was low and could not be estimated for schizotypal PD. Future studies should investigate which of both models may prove to be most valid in terms of predicting current and future impairments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The DSM should replace maladaptive traits with the five-factor model: Comment on Clark and Watson (2022).

In their target article, Watson and Clark made a number of useful suggestions for improving Criterion B of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, alternative model of personality disorders, all of which assume that personality variation will be represented in the next iteration of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a maladaptive trait variation diagnostic of personality disorders (PDs). I describe how maladaptive traits are not equivalent to normal-range five-factor model traits in terms of domain structure, range, and stability, and I conclude that rather than making subtle changes to the existing maladaptive trait model for PDs, it would be better to replace it with a genuine five-factor model that could be used to conceptualize all patients, whether or not they are diagnosed with a PD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Criterion A: Level of personality functioning in the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders.

Criterion A, as represented by Level of Personality Functioning (LPF), offers a means by which to conceptualize the core impairment in self and interpersonal functioning that distinguishes personality disorder (PD) from other forms of psychopathology. One of the most widely cited criticisms of the current Section II in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition categorical diagnostic system is the high level of comorbidity among the categorical PD diagnoses. The Section III alternative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition model for PDs (AMPD) addresses this problem by assessing the commonalities of the PDs using a single severity continuum, represented in the AMPD by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), which comprises both self and interpersonal pathology. Since its initial introduction, the LPFS has generated an expansive literature base and has also seen significant advancements in its measurement, including both semistructured and self-report methods. Such studies have generally demonstrated that the LPFS can be rated reliably, across both experienced and inexperienced raters, and demonstrates strong validity as evidenced by associations with relevant criterion variables and demonstrations of predictive and clinical utility. This review offers a brief history of the conceptualization and development of Criterion A and the LPFS, describes the major advancements in its measurement, and provides a summary of the status of the empirical literature regarding Criterion A's structure, reliability, and validity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

More is more: Evidence for the incremental value of the SCID-II/SCID-5-PD specific factors over and above a general personality disorder factor.

Currently, 3 competing conceptualizations of personality dysfunction can be distinguished: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) categorical model delineating 10 distinct types of personality disorders (PDs); the alternative model for PDs (DSM-5 Section III), which assesses personality functioning and traits separately; and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Version conceptualization, which provides 1 single code for the presence of a PD (which is based on problems in functioning) as well as codes that specify the level of the disorder (mild/moderate/severe), and prominent trait domains or patterns (5 domains and 1 pattern). The current study aims to assess the incremental value of the DSM-5 PDs over and above a global personality dysfunction factor, using expert ratings obtained with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV PDs and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 PDs interview in a large sample of clinical patients (N = 3,851). All estimated bifactor models provided adequate fit to the data. We found a surprisingly low explained common variance for the g-factor (<40%), indicating that ignoring the specific PD factors would lead to a substantial loss of information. The strongest specific PDs in terms of explained common variance were the avoidant, schizotypal, and schizoid PD factors and the conduct disorder criteria set if included. Correlations between our factors and external variables were relatively low, except for the Severity Indices of Personality Problems, which aims to measure personality functioning. Our findings suggest that specific PDs still have an important role to play in the assessment of personality pathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders in MMPI-2/RF Personality Disorder Scales.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) instruments are frequently used to assess personality and psychopathology. Recent publications of personality disorder (PD) spectra scales for dimensionalized PD syndromes with MMPI instruments may advance PD assessment. To this end, we examined MMPI-Second Edition (2) and MMPI-2-Restructured Form (-RF) PD Spectra scales within the lens of a contemporary dimensional model of PDs, the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD). The core dimension of PD, Criterion A of the AMPD or level of personality functioning (LPF), was characterized quantitatively within the PD Spectra scales. By sequentially factor analyzing the scales of the Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP-118) to a common general factor of PD, an index of LPF external to the MMPI item pool was established. This LPF dimension was strongly represented across most PD Spectra scales. LPF variances within the PD Spectra scales were deconstructed using measures of general demoralization (RCdemoralization) and maladaptive personality traits indexed by the Personality Psychopathology-5 (PSY-5). Nuanced LPF and PD Spectra scale relationships were discerned. Dimensionalized Antisocial PD, Borderline PD, Dependent PD, and Paranoid PD showed meaningful association with LPF after demoralization, and maladaptive trait variances were removed. The examination of the MMPI-3 item pool reveals that the existing PD Spectra scale item sets are largely carried forward in the new edition of the MMPI. This suggests PD Spectra scale correlates, including LPF relationships, may be discernable in the newest edition of the MMPI, pending future study.