scholarly journals Global personality dysfunction and the relationship of pathological and normal trait domains in the DSM‐5 alternative model for personality disorders

Author(s):  
Leslie C. Morey ◽  
Evan W. Good ◽  
Christopher J. Hopwood
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Morey ◽  
Evan Good ◽  
Christopher James Hopwood

Objective: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders distinguishes core personality dysfunction common to all personality pathology from maladaptive traits that are specific variants of disorder. Previous research shows convergence between maladaptive and normal range trait domains as well as substantial correlations between maladaptive traits and core dysfunctions, leading some to conclude that personality traits and dysfunction are redundant. This study sought to examine the potential utility of the concept of core dysfunctions as a means of clarifying the nature of the relationship between maladaptive and normal-range traits. Method: Three non-clinical samples (n=178, 307, and 1,008) were evaluated for personality dysfunction, maladaptive traits, and normal-range traits and normative traits using different measures. Results: Results indicate that: (1) normal trait domains and core dysfunction contribute independently to understanding maladaptive traits; (2) the correlation of a normal trait domain with its putative maladaptive equivalent is consistently accounted for in part by core dysfunction; and (3) the multi-trait multi-method matrices of normal and maladaptive personality trait domains demonstrate appreciable discriminant validity problems that are clarified by a consideration of core dysfunction. Conclusion: These results suggest that maladaptive traits reflect the distinguishable contributions of core personality dysfunction (problems) and normal range personality traits (person).


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Sleep ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Michael L Crowe ◽  
Josh Miller

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
BO BACH ◽  
KRISTIAN MARKON ◽  
ERIK SIMONSEN ◽  
ROBERT F. KRUEGER

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 284-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Rodriguez-Seijas ◽  
Camilo Ruggero ◽  
Nicholas R. Eaton ◽  
Robert F. Krueger

2010 ◽  
Vol 108 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 141-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila J. Pulay ◽  
Frederick S. Stinson ◽  
W. June Ruan ◽  
Sharon M. Smith ◽  
Roger P. Pickering ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Morey ◽  
Kathryn T. Benson ◽  
Alexander J. Busch ◽  
Andrew E. Skodol

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.


Psychotherapy ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Christopher Muran ◽  
Jeremy D. Safran ◽  
Bernard S. Gorman ◽  
Lisa Wallner Samstag ◽  
Catherine Eubanks-Carter ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document