scholarly journals Introducing a short self-report for the assessment of DSM–5 level of personality functioning for personality disorders: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale.

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 438-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominick Gamache ◽  
Claudia Savard ◽  
Philippe Leclerc ◽  
Alexandre Côté
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Interpersonal Functioning ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5

The Inter-Rater Reliability and Validity of the Italian Translation of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I and Module II: A Preliminary Report on Consecutively Admitted Psychotherapy Outpatients

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement C) ◽  
pp. 95-123
Author(s):  
Antonella Somma ◽  
Serena Borroni ◽  
Giulia Gialdi ◽  
Davide Carlotta ◽  
Laura Emanuela Giarolli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Clinical Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5

To evaluate the reliability and convergent validity of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (SCID-5-AMPD) Module I and Module II, 88 adult psychotherapy participants were administered the Italian translations of the SCID-5-AMPD Module I and Module II, Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF), Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report (LPFS-SF), Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (SCID-5-PD) relying on a Williams crossover design. SCID-5-AMPD Module I and Module II showed excellent inter-rater reliability. In terms of convergent validity, meaningful associations were observed between SCID-5-AMPD Module I scores and self-report measures of Criterion A; similarly, SCID-5-AMPD Module II trait scores were meaningfully related to PID-5 trait scores. As a whole, our preliminary findings supported the clinical utility of DSM-5 AMPD.

An Empirical Evaluation of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders in Later Life

2020 ◽  
pp. 009141502098076
Author(s):  
Lisa E. Stone ◽  
Daniel L. Segal
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Empirical Evaluation ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Pathological Personality Traits

Personality disorders (PDs) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM-5) are conceptualized as distinct clinical syndromes. However, debate persists about the clinical utility of this categorical model, with many researchers supporting a dimensional model that focuses on pathological personality traits and personality dysfunction. This model was published in Section III of DSM-5 and named the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). This study evaluated the AMPD by examining relationships between traits and dysfunction with traditional categorical PD constructs among older adults. Older adults ( N = 202) completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5, Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report, and Coolidge Axis II Inventory. Results indicated that pathological personality traits do not relate to categorical PDs in directions predicted by the AMPD. Personality functioning related to categorical PDs in expected theoretical patterns according to the AMPD but lacked incremental validity above pathological personality traits. An implication of these findings is that the AMPD does not fully resolve the age-related issues with the traditional categorical PD model.

An evaluation of DSM-5 Section III Personality Disorder Criterion A (Impairment) in accounting for psychopathology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Sleep ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Michael L Crowe ◽  
Josh Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Statistical Prediction ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
Axis I

An alternative diagnostic model of personality disorders (AMPD) was introduced in DSM-5 that diagnoses PDs based on the presence of personality impairment (Criterion A) and pathological personality traits (Criterion B). Research examining Criterion A has been limited to date, due to the lack of a specific measure to assess it; this changed, however, with the recent publication of a self-report assessment of personality dysfunction as defined by Criterion A (Levels of Personality Functioning Scale – Self-report; LPFS-SR; Morey, 2017). The aim of the current study was to test several key propositions regarding the role of Criterion A in the AMPD including the underlying factor structure of the LPFS-SR, the discriminant validity of the hypothesized factors, whether Criterion A distinguishes personality psychopathology from Axis I symptoms, the overlap between Criterion A and B, and the incremental predictive utility of Criterion A and B in the statistical prediction of traditional PD symptom counts. Neither a single factor model nor an a priori four-factor model of dysfunction fit the data well. The LPFS-SR dimensions were highly interrelated and manifested little evidence of discriminant validity. In addition, the impairment dimensions manifested robust correlations with measures of both Axis I and II constructs, challenging the notion that personality dysfunction is unique to PDs. Finally, multivariate regression analyses suggested that the traits account for substantially more unique variance in DSM-5 Section II PDs than does personality impairment. These results provide important information as to the functioning of the two main components of the DSM-5 AMPD and raise questions about whether the model may need revision moving forward.Keywords: dysfunction, impairment, personality disorders, Section III, incremental validity Public Significance: The alternative model of personality disorders included in Section III of the 5th addition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes two primary components: personality dysfunction and maladaptive traits. The current results raise questions about how a new, DSM-5 aligned measure of personality dysfunction operates with regard its factor structure, discriminant validity, ability to differentiate between personality and non-personality based forms of psychopathology, and incremental validity in the statistical prediction of traditional DSM personality disorders.

Relating DSM-5 section III personality traits to section II personality disorder diagnoses

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Morey ◽  
K. T. Benson ◽  
A. E. Skodol
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Work Group ◽  
Taxonomic Structure ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Dsm Iv

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.

scholarly journals Interrater Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM–5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module i: Level of Personality Functioning Scale

2018 ◽  
Vol 100 (6) ◽  
pp. 630-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tore Buer Christensen ◽  
Muirne C. S. Paap ◽  
Marianne Arnesen ◽  
Karoline Koritzinsky ◽  
Tor-Erik Nysaeter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Clinical Interview ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5

Assessment of Personality Disorders and Related Traits: Bridging DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5

2012 ◽  
pp. 107-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller ◽  
Lauren R. Few ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Prototype Matching ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Assessment Techniques ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
The Many ◽  
Diagnostic Criterion

The assessment of personality disorders and related traits is at an important crossroads with the imminent release of DSM-5. In this chapter we first review assessment techniques and measures as they pertain to the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and pathological personality traits, focusing in particular on the many self-report inventories and semistructured interviews that have been developed. Second, we discuss the proposed changes to the diagnosis of personality disorder in DSM-5, which are substantial, and their ramifications for the assessment of personality disorder, including the (now abandoned) proposal to replace explicit diagnostic criterion sets with a prototype matching technique, the proposal to delete and/or shift a number of diagnoses from the personality disorders section, the provision of a new dimensional trait model of personality pathology, and the provision of new rating of impairment pertaining to self and interpersonal functioning.

scholarly journals A Proposed Classification of ICD-11 Severity Degrees of Personality Pathology Using the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominick Gamache ◽  
Claudia Savard ◽  
Philippe Leclerc ◽  
Maude Payant ◽  
Nicolas Berthelot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Self ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Interpersonal Functioning ◽  
World Health ◽  
Anchor Points ◽  
Degrees Of Severity ◽  
Degree Of Severity

Background: The 11th version of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) has adopted a dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) nosology. Notably, it includes an assessment of PD degree of severity, which can be classified according to five categories. To date, there is no gold standard measure for assessing degree of PD severity based on the ICD-11 model, and there are no empirically-based anchor points to delineate the proposed categories. With the operationalization of PD degrees of severity in the ICD-11 PD model now being closely aligned with Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), sharing a focus on self and interpersonal dysfunction, self-report instruments developed for the latter model might prove useful as screening tools to determine degrees of severity in the former.Methods: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale, a brief validated self-report questionnaire originally designed to assess level of personality pathology according to the AMPD framework, was used to derive anchor points to delineate the five severity degrees from the ICD-11 PD model. Data from five clinical and non-clinical samples (total N = 2,240) allowed identifying anchor points for classification, based on Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis, Latent Class Analysis, and data distribution statistics. Categories were validated using multiple indices pertaining to externalizing and internalizing symptoms relevant to PD.Results: Analyses yielded the following anchor points for PD degrees of severity: No PD = 0–1.04; Personality Difficulty = 1.05–1.29; Mild PD = 1.30–1.89; Moderate PD = 1.90–2.49; and Severe PD = 2.50 and above. A clear gradient of severity across the five categories was observed in all samples. A high number of significant contrasts among PD categories were also observed on external variables, consistent with the ICD-11 PD degree of severity operationalization.Conclusions: The present study provides potentially useful guidelines to determine severity of personality pathology based on the ICD-11 model. The use of a brief self-report questionnaire as a screening tool for assessing PD degrees of severity should be seen as a time-efficient support for clinical decision and treatment planning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document