An evaluation of DSM–5 Section III personality disorder Criterion A (impairment) in accounting for psychopathology.

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 1181-1191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea E. Sleep ◽  
Donald R. Lynam ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Michael L. Crowe ◽  
Joshua D. Miller
2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Morey ◽  
K. T. Benson ◽  
A. E. Skodol

BackgroundThe DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group formulated a hybrid dimensional/categorical model that represented personality disorders as combinations of core impairments in personality functioning with specific configurations of problematic personality traits. Specific clusters of traits were selected to serve as indicators for six DSM categorical diagnoses to be retained in this system – antisocial, avoidant, borderline, narcissistic, obsessive–compulsive and schizotypal personality disorders. The goal of the current study was to describe the empirical relationships between the DSM-5 section III pathological traits and DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II personality disorder diagnoses.MethodData were obtained from a sample of 337 clinicians, each of whom rated one of his or her patients on all aspects of the DSM-IV and DSM-5 proposed alternative model. Regression models were constructed to examine trait–disorder relationships, and the incremental validity of core personality dysfunctions (i.e. criterion A features for each disorder) was examined in combination with the specified trait clusters.ResultsFindings suggested that the trait assignments specified by the Work Group tended to be substantially associated with corresponding DSM-IV concepts, and the criterion A features provided additional diagnostic information in all but one instance.ConclusionsAlthough the DSM-5 section III alternative model provided a substantially different taxonomic structure for personality disorders, the associations between this new approach and the traditional personality disorder concepts in DSM-5 section II make it possible to render traditional personality disorder concepts using alternative model traits in combination with core impairments in personality functioning.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea E. Sleep ◽  
Brandon Weiss ◽  
Donald R. Lynam ◽  
Joshua D. Miller

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 1200-1205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea E. Sleep ◽  
Donald R. Lynam ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Michael L. Crowe ◽  
Joshua D. Miller

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Berghuis ◽  
Theo J. M. Ingenhoven ◽  
Paul T. van der Heijden ◽  
Gina M. P. Rossi ◽  
Chris K. W. Schotte

The six personality disorder (PD) types in DSM-5 section III are intended to resemble their DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II PD counterparts, but are now described by the level of personality functioning (criterion A) and an assigned trait profile (criterion B). However, concerns have been raised about the validity of these PD types. The present study examined the continuity between the DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II PDs and the corresponding trait profiles of the six DSM-5 section III PDs in a sample of 350 Dutch psychiatric patients. Facets of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology—Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ) were presumed as representations (proxies) of the DSM-5 section III traits. Correlational patterns between the DAPP-BQ and the six PDs were consistent with previous research between DAPP-BQ and DSM-IV PDs. Moreover, DAPP-BQ proxies were able to predict the six selected PDs. However, the assigned trait profile for each PD didn't fully match the corresponding PD.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
Gillian A. McCabe ◽  
Joshua R. Oltmanns ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger

There is considerable interest in the study of the general factors of personality disorder (g-PD), psychopathology (p factor), and personality (GFP). One prominent interpretation of the g-PD is that it is defined by the self-interpersonal impairments of Criterion A of the DSM-5 Section III. However, no study has directly tested this hypothesis as no prior g-PD study has included a measure of Criterion A. The current study provides a direct test of this hypothesis, along with comparing g-PD with the general factors of psychopathology and personality. Also extracted was a common general factor across all three domains. Suggested herein is that the g-PD, the p factor, and the GFP reflect the impairments (e.g., social and occupational dysfunction) that are secondary to the traits and disorders rather than the traits and/or disorders themselves.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Sleep ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
Josh Miller

Following the introduction of the DSM-5 Section III Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD), much of the empirical attention has been directed towards testing the performance of Criterion B (i.e., pathological traits). Much more recently, with the development of assessment tools related to Criterion A (i.e., personality impairment), a burgeoning literature base is forming for it as well. A closer look at the Criterion A component, however, reveals disagreements around its structure, discriminant validity, ability to distinguish between personality-based and non-personality-based forms of psychopathology, overlap between the two criteria, and incremental validity. The goal of the current study (N = 365 undergraduates) was to test Criterion A in relation to both pathological personality traits, as specified in the DSM-5, as well as general personality traits as suggested might be more appropriate by some scholars. The results suggest that impairment domains overlap substantially with pathological and general traits, and these traits account for considerable variance in impairment domains. Most importantly, the findings suggest that general and pathological traits functioned in nearly identical ways, as evidenced by the similar relations that they evinced with traditional DSM-5 PD constructs. In line with previous work, the present findings demonstrate limited discriminant validity among impairment domains, and an inability to distinguish between Axis I and II symptoms. Further research on the AMPD is needed to test the necessity and sufficiency of its constituent components.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document