Categorical and Dimensional Conceptions of Personality Pathology in DSM-5: Toward a Model-Based Synthesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Casey M. Strickland ◽  
Christopher J. Hopwood ◽  
Marina A. Bornovalova ◽  
Elizabeth C. Rojas ◽  
Robert F. Krueger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Interview Protocol ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Cross Domain ◽  
Bifactor Models ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis

Symptom-based models, typically operationalized through diagnostic interview, and trait models, typically operationalized via questionnaire inventories, reflect historically competing conceptions of personality disorder (PD). DSM-5 includes models of both types, in Sections II and III, respectively. In this study, we sought to synthesize these alternative conceptualizations by fitting bifactor models to data for both Section II PD symptoms (assessed using the SCID-II interview protocol) and dimensional traits for the six PDs retained in Section III (assessed using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5). Bifactor models fit the data effectively for all six PDs, and trait and symptom indicators both loaded appreciably on general factors reflecting cross-domain PD constructs. These results provide the basis for a principled, quantitative synthesis of categorical/interview and dimensional/self-report approaches to operationalizing and studying PDs, with considerable implications for diagnosis, research, and practice.

Reliability, Criterion and Concurrent Validity of the Farsi Translation of DIVA-5: A Semi-Structured Diagnostic Interview for Adults With ADHD

2020 ◽  
pp. 108705472093081
Author(s):  
Lida Zamani ◽  
Zahra Shahrivar ◽  
Javad Alaghband-Rad ◽  
Vandad Sharifi ◽  
Elham Davoodi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Clinical Interviews ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic ◽  
Adult Outpatient

Objectives: This study evaluated the psychometrics of the Farsi translation of diagnostic interview for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults (DIVA-5) based on DSM-5 criteria. Methods: Referrals to a psychiatric outpatient clinic ( N = 120, 61.7% males, mean age 34.35 ± 9.84 years) presenting for an adult ADHD (AADHD) diagnosis, were evaluated using the structured clinical interviews for DSM-5 (SCID-5 & SCID-5-PD) and the DIVA-5. The participants completed Conner’s Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Self Report-Screening Version (CAARS-S-SV). Results: According to the SCID-5 and DIVA-5 diagnoses, 55% and 38% of the participants had ADHD, respectively. Diagnostic agreement was 81.66% between DIVA-5/SCID-5 diagnoses, 80% between SCID-5/CAARS-S-SV, and 71.66% between DIVA-5/CAARS-S-SV. Test–retest and inter-rater reliability results for the DIVA-5 were good to excellent. Conclusion: Findings support the validity and reliability of the Farsi translation of DIVA-5 among the Farsi-speaking adult outpatient population.

Psychometric Properties of a Structured Diagnostic Interview for DSM-5 Anxiety, Mood, and Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders

Assessment ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
David F. Tolin ◽  
Christina Gilliam ◽  
Bethany M. Wootton ◽  
William Bowe ◽  
Laura B. Bragdon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Reliability Data ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Structured Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Three hundred sixty-two adult patients were administered the Diagnostic Interview for Anxiety, Mood, and OCD and Related Neuropsychiatric Disorders (DIAMOND). Of these, 121 provided interrater reliability data, and 115 provided test–retest reliability data. Participants also completed a battery of self-report measures that assess symptoms of anxiety, mood, and obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. Interrater reliability of DIAMOND anxiety, mood, and obsessive-compulsive and related diagnoses ranged from very good to excellent. Test–retest reliability of DIAMOND diagnoses ranged from good to excellent. Convergent validity was established by significant between-group comparisons on applicable self-report measures for nearly all diagnoses. The results of the present study indicate that the DIAMOND is a promising semistructured diagnostic interview for DSM-5 disorders.

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.

Discrepancies in Self- and Informant-Reports of Personality Pathology: Examining the DSM-5 Section III Trait Model

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Carnovale ◽  
Erika Carlson ◽  
Lena C. Quilty ◽  
Michael Bagby
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Community Sample ◽  
Elevated Risk ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Potential Approach ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Severity Scores

A proposed feature of personality pathology involves disturbances in identity, of which a lack of insight is one such manifestation. From recommendations in the literature, one potential approach to assess and quantify such impairment and link it to personality pathology, would be to obtain self- and informant reports and subsequently index the degree personality pathology severity exacerbates self-other discrepancies. The current study examines the degree to which self- and informant-reports of DSM-5 Section III trait scores are discrepant (i.e., mean-level discrepancies and correlational accuracy), as well as whether general personality pathology severity moderates these characteristics. Target participants (N = 208) in an elevated-risk community sample completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), and knowledgeable informants rated targets using the informant version of the PID-5. General personality pathology severity was assessed via an aggregate of Five Factor Model PD prototype scores derived from self-report, informant-report, and interview ratings. Mean-level discrepancies and correlational accuracy (and their moderation by general personality pathology) for PID-5 domains, facets, and PD scores were subsequently examined. Results suggested that targets tended to mostly rate themselves only slightly lower than informants across all PID-5 scores (median dz = .21), and correlational accuracy across all PID-5 scores was moderate (median r = .33). Importantly, however, mean-level discrepancies increased as general personality pathology severity scores increased. Implications and future directions for the multi-method assessment of dimensional personality pathology are discussed.

scholarly journals MCMI-III Personality Disorders, Traits, and Profiles in Adult ADHD Outpatients

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 830-839
Author(s):  
Francesco Oliva ◽  
Chiara Mangiapane ◽  
Gabriele Nibbio ◽  
Alberto Portigliatti Pomeri ◽  
Giuseppe Maina
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Profiles ◽  
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory ◽  
High Prevalence

Objective: To assess prevalence of personality traits and disorders according to Millon’s evolution-based model and to identify the most representative personality profiles among adult ADHD outpatients. Method: Personality traits and disorders were evaluated using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (MCMI-III) and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in a consecutive sample of adult ADHD outpatients ( N = 70) diagnosed by the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale–version 1.1 (ASRS-v1.1) and the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults (DIVA 2.0). Results: More than half of our sample (57.1%) showed at least one personality disorder (PD). The most prevalent PDs were paranoid, schizotypal and negativistic (18.6% for all three PDs), depressive (17.1%), and sadistic (11.4%). No patient had a borderline PD. The EFA identified three personality profiles (“sadistic-antisocial-negativistic,” “masochistic-depressive-dependent-avoidant,” and “antihistrionic-schizoid”). Conclusion: High prevalence of PDs among adult ADHD patients was confirmed. The personality profiles seemed to reflect the persistence of ADHD and related childhood comorbidities in adulthood.

Schizotypal Personality Disorder: An Integrative Review

2012 ◽  
pp. 436-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Kwapil ◽  
Neus Barrantes-Vidal
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
American Psychiatric Association ◽  
Schizotypal Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Integrative Review ◽  
Schizotypal Personality ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Perceptual Distortions

Schizotypal personality disorder (SPD) first appeared in the American Psychiatric Association diagnostic nosology in 1980. However, its roots stretch back more than 100 years under the guise of labels such as borderline, ambulatory, and latent schizophrenia. It is currently characterized as involving marked interpersonal deficits, cognitive and perceptual distortions, and odd and eccentric behaviors. SPD stands at a unique crossroads in the characterization and treatment of psychopathology in that it is conceptualized both as stable personality pathology and also as a milder manifestation of schizophrenia. SPD’s etiological relation with schizophrenia is supported by extensive genetic, neurobiological, neurocognitive, psychosocial, and clinical research. However, research has also identified biopsychosocial factors that differentiate SPD from schizophrenia and may protect SPD patients from deteriorating into psychosis. The chapter reviews this literature and current controversies surrounding SPD in light of the upcoming release of DSM-5.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document