Divergences between clinical and research methods for assessing personality disorders: implications for research and the evolution of axis II

Toward DSM-V and the classification of psychopathology

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) developed by the American Psychiatric Association (1994) is a compelling effort at a best approximation to date of a scientifically based nomenclature, but even its authors have acknowledged that its diagnoses and criterion sets are highly debatable. Well-meaning clinicians, theorists, and researchers could find some basis for fault in virtually every sentence, due in part to the absence of adequate research to guide its construction. Some points of disagreement, however, are more fundamental than others. The authors discuss issues that cut across individual diagnostic categories and that should receive particular attention in DSM-V: (a) the process by which the diagnostic manual is developed, (b) the differentiation from normal psychological functioning, (c) the differentiation among diagnostic categories, (d) cross-sectional vs. longitudinal diagnoses, and (e) the role of laboratory instruments.

Issues in the assessment and conceptualization of personality disorders

This article reviews several current issues associated with the definition and assessment of personality disorders (PDs) as defined in the third and fourth editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Specifically reviewed are issues associated with classification, PD conceptualizations, and the assessment of these disorders. DSM PD categories are also reviewed in terms of their psychometric properties. A review of the PD assessment literature suggests that DSM conceptualizations and definitions of PDs are problematic at both conceptual and quantitative levels. This article concludes with suggestions for possible alternative approaches to and modifications of DSM PD assessment.

Complementary approaches to the assessment of personality disorder. The Personality Assessment Schedule and Adult Personality Functioning Assessment compared

BACKGROUND

Current concepts and measures of personality disorder are in many respects unsatisfactory.

AIMS

To establish agreement between two contrasting measures of personality disorder, and to compare subject-informant agreement on each. To examine the extent to which trait abnormality can be separated from interpersonal and social role dysfunction.

METHOD

Fifty-six subjects and their closest informants were interviewed and rated independently. Personality functioning was assessed using a modified Personality Assessment Schedule (M-PAS), and the Adult Personality Functioning Assessment (APFA).

RESULTS

Subject-informant agreement on the M-PAS was moderately good, and agreement between the M-PAS and the APFA, across and within subjects and informants, was comparable to that for the M-PAS. This was equally the case when M-PAS trait plus impairment scores and trait abnormality scores were used.

CONCLUSIONS

The M-PAS and the APFA are probably assessing similar constructs. Trait abnormalities occur predominantly in an interpersonal context and could be assessed within that context.

Personality disorders in late life. Understanding and overcoming the gap in research

A review of the literature on personality disorders (PD) in late life reveals fewer research papers than those found for PD in younger adults and for other major late-life psychiatric diagnoses. The authors suggest that this gap is largely due to the difficult and inconsistent diagnostic process for late-life PDs. Diagnosis is complicated by the frequent unavailability and/or unreliability of longitudinal data, lack of age-adjusted diagnostic instruments, and failure of the current Axis II nosology to account for age-related issues, including changes in social functioning, and the effects of comorbid illness and cognitive impairment. They propose that the development of a geriatric subclassification for PD, along with improved clinical documentation of personality and data from dimensional instruments for both normal and pathologic personalities, would provide a more reliable, valid, and geriatric-friendly diagnostic process.

Depressive personality in the relatives of outpatients with dysthymic disorder and episodic major depressive disorder and normal controls

BACKGROUND

This study examined whether there is a familial relationship between depressive personality and the mood disorders.

METHOD

Rates of depressive personality were compared in 161 relatives of outpatients with dysthymic disorder (DD), 75 relatives of outpatients with non-chronic major depressive disorder (MDD), and 90 relatives of normal controls. All probands and relatives were evaluated using structured diagnostic interviews for Axis I disorders and depressive personality traits.

RESULTS

The relatives of patients with DD exhibited a significantly higher rate of depressive personality than the relatives of normal controls, while the relatives of patients with MDD fell in between, and did not differ from, the other two groups. These results held after controlling for a lifetime history of mood disorder in the relatives, and could not be explained by an increased rate of depressive personality in the DD probands.

LIMITATIONS

The sample size was modest, comorbid non-mood Axis I and II disorders in the relatives were not controlled, and DSM-IV criteria for depressive personality disorder were not yet available at the time the study was undertaken.

CONCLUSION

These findings are consistent with the view that depressive personality is part of a spectrum of mood disorders with a shared familial liability, but suggest that this link is strongest with chronic forms of depression such as DD and double depression.

Expert opinions about the ICD-10 category of enduring personality change after catastrophic experience

The inclusion of enduring personality change after catastrophic experience (EPCACE) as a diagnostic category in the ICD-10 represents a turning point in the evolution of the nosology of traumatic stress syndromes, yet many aspects of the diagnosis remain contentious. Given the absence of published research concerning this category, an exploratory survey of international experts was conducted using a questionnaire focusing on key aspects of the category, namely whether respondents used the diagnosis of EPCACE in their practice; which features were most salient in making a diagnosis of posttraumatic personality change; the types and characteristics of traumatic events that were judged to be most likely to cause EPCACE; and the possible limitations of the ICD-10 diagnosis. A response rate of 56.3% was obtained. A substantial portion of trauma experts working in the field of human-engendered violence recognize the possibility that certain traumas can result in personality change. However, questions were raised about the specificity of the criteria proposed for the category of EPCACE in ICD-10. A composite profile of proposed additional features suggests that a more comprehensive array of adaptational changes are recognized than are encompassed by EPCACE.

Axis I diagnostic comorbidity and borderline personality disorder

Borderline personality disorder (PD) has been the most studied PD. Research has examined the relationship between borderline PD and most axis I diagnostic classes such as eating disorders, mood disorders, and substance use disorders. However, there is little information regarding the relationship of borderline PD and overall comorbidity with all classes of axis I disorders assessed simultaneously. In the present study, 409 patients were evaluated with semistructured diagnostic interviews for axis I and axis II disorders. Patients with a diagnosis of borderline PD versus those who did not receive the diagnosis were assigned significantly more current axis I diagnoses (3.4 v 2.0). Borderline PD patients were twice as likely to receive a diagnosis of three or more current axis I disorders (69.5% v 31.1%) and nearly four times as likely to have a diagnosis of four or more disorders 147.5% v 13.7%). In comparison to nonborderline PD patients, borderline PD patients more frequently received a diagnosis of current major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar I and II disorder, panic disorder with agoraphobia, social and specific phobia, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), eating disorder NOS, and any somatoform disorder. Similar results were observed for lifetime diagnoses. Overall, borderline PD patients were more likely to have multiple axis I disorders than nonborderline PD patients, and the differences between the two groups were present across mood, anxiety, substance use, eating, and somatoform disorder categories. These findings highlight the importance of performing thorough evaluations of axis I pathology in patients with borderline PD in order not to overlook syndromes that are potentially treatment-responsive.

Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice: is comorbidity being missed?

The recognition of comorbidity has important clinical significance. Comorbidity predicts a poorer outcome for patients with depressive and anxiety disorders, and the presence of multiple psychiatric disorders is associated with greater psychosocial impairment. In routine clinical settings, an unstructured interview is typically used to assess patients. However, unstructured interviews may result in missed diagnoses, with potential negative clinical consequences. The goal of the present study was to examine whether diagnostic comorbidity is less frequently identified during a routine clinical evaluation versus a semistructured diagnostic interview. Axis I diagnoses derived from structured and unstructured clinical interviews were compared in two groups of psychiatric outpatients in the same practice setting. Five hundred individuals presenting for an intake appointment to a general adult psychiatric practice underwent a routine unstructured clinical interview. Subsequent to completion of the first study, the method of conducting diagnostic evaluations was changed and 500 individuals were interviewed with the Structural Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID). The two groups had similar demographic characteristics and scored similarly on symptom questionnaires. Individuals interviewed with the SCID were assigned significantly more axis I diagnoses than individuals assessed with an unstructured interview. More than one third of the patients interviewed with the SCID were diagnosed with three or more disorders, in contrast to fewer than 10% of the patients assessed with an unstructured interview. Fifteen disorders were more frequently diagnosed in the SCID sample, and these differences occurred across mood, anxiety, eating, somatoform, and impulse-control disorder categories. The results suggest that in routine clinical practice, clinicians underrecognize diagnostic comorbidity. Anxiety, somatoform, and not otherwise specified (NOS) disorders were the most frequently underdetected disorders. The implications of underdiagnosis for the treatment outcome are discussed.

Psychopathology: description and classification

DSM-IV's strong empirical base has yielded an instrument with good to excellent reliability and improved validity. Diagnostic reliability depends on both the clarity and validity of diagnostic criteria and the changeability of disorders over time: The reliability of schizophrenic spectrum disorders, personality disorders, and some childhood and adolescent disorders remains problematic. Findings on diagnostic validity appear paradoxical: Attempts to validate schizophrenic spectrum disorders with neurobiological and genetic-familial validators have been only modestly successful, whereas the tripartite personality trait model has differentiated a range of depressive and anxiety disorders. Research on comorbidity has identified several highly comorbid disorders (substance-related disorders, personality disorders, depression, and anxiety) as well as some adverse consequences of comorbidity. The advantages of dimensional approaches to diagnosis have largely been demonstrated conceptually; ultimate conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of dimensional and syndromal methods await substantial additional empirical research.

Dimensional models and neurobiology of personality disorders

Since the introduction of a separate axis in DSM-III (1980), the validity of the categorical nature of the classification of personality disorders has been seriously questioned. Subsequently, a number of multidimensional alternatives have been proposed based on statistical procedures or theoretical considerations. At the same time, the study of the neurobiological underpinnings of personality and personality disorders has created a better understanding of etiological and pathogenetic processes responsible for these chronic disorders. The findings of these studies corroborate some of the major findings of statistical studies regarding the nature of the frequent comorbidity of axis II disorders. In the discussion, a mixed, two-tier diagnostic model is proposed to serve both scientific and clinical aims without the disadvantages of an exclusive choice for either categorical or dimensional approaches to the classification of personality pathology.

Revising and assessing axis II, Part I: developing a clinically and empirically valid assessment method

OBJECTIVE

Personality pathology is difficult to measure. Current instruments have problems with validity and rely on a direct-question format that may be inappropriate for the assessment of personality. In addition, they are designed specifically to address current DSM-IV categories and criteria, which limits their utility in making meaningful revisions of those criteria. These problems suggest the need for consideration of alternative approaches to assessing and revising axis II.

METHOD

This article describes the development and validation of an assessment tool designed to allow clinicians to provide detailed, clinically rich personality descriptions in a systematic and quantifiable form (the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure, or SWAP-200). A total of 797 randomly selected psychiatrists and psychologists used the SWAP-200 to describe either an actual patient or a hypothetical, prototypical patient with one of 14 personality disorders (one of the 10 DSM-IV axis II disorders or one of four disorders included in the appendix or in DSM-III-R) or a healthy, high-functioning patient.

RESULTS

The data yielded aggregated descriptions of actual patients in each diagnostic category (N = 530) as well as aggregated descriptions of hypothetical, prototypical patients (N = 267). SWAP-200 descriptions of patients with personality disorders showed high convergent and discriminant validity on a variety of criteria. The diagnostic procedure lends itself to both categorical and dimensional personality disorder diagnoses. Descriptions of individual patients resemble MMPI profiles, based on the degree of match between the patient's profile and a criterion group, except that they are based on clinician observation rather than self-report.

CONCLUSIONS

The SWAP-200 represents an approach to the measurement and classification of personality disorders that has potential for refining axis II categories and criteria empirically in ways that are both psychometrically and clinically sound.

Revising and assessing axis II, Part II: toward an empirically based and clinically useful classification of personality disorders

OBJECTIVE

The DSM-IV classification of personality disorders has not proven satisfying to either researchers or clinicians. Incremental changes to categories and criteria using structured interviews may no longer be useful in attempting to refine axis II. An alternative approach that quantifies clinical observation may prove useful in developing a clinically rich, useful, empirically grounded classification of personality pathology.

METHOD

A total of 496 experienced psychiatrists and psychologists used the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 (SWAP-200) to describe current patients diagnosed with axis II personality disorders. The SWAP-200 is an assessment tool that allows clinicians to provide detailed, clinically rich descriptions of patients in a systematic and quantifiable form. A statistical technique, Q-analysis, was used to identify naturally occurring groupings of patients with personality disorders, based on shared psychological features. The resulting groupings represent an empirically derived personality disorder taxonomy.

RESULTS

The analysis found 11 naturally occurring diagnostic categories, some of which resembled current axis II categories and some of which did not. The findings suggest that axis II falls short in its attempt to "carve nature at the joints": In some cases it puts patients who are psychologically dissimilar in the same diagnostic category, and in others it makes diagnostic distinctions where none likely exist. It also fails to recognize a large category of patients best characterized as having a dysphoric personality constellation. The empirically derived classification system appears to be more faithful to the clinical data and to avoid many problems inherent in the current axis II taxonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The approach presented here may be helpful in refining the existing taxonomy of personality disorders and moving toward a system of classification that lies on a firmer clinical and empirical foundation. In addition, it can help to bridge the gap that often exists between research and clinical approaches to personality pathology.

Refining the measurement of axis II: a Q-sort procedure for assessing personality pathology

The measurement of personality disorders (PDs) has proven to be a difficult enterprise. This article describes two initial studies of the validity and reliability of the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP), a Q-sort procedure that quantifies clinical judgment, which may be useful both for assessing personality pathology and for empirically refining Axis II categories and diagnostic criteria. In the first study, 153 clinicians from a random national sample used a version of the Q-sort to describe either a prototype or actual patient with either a borderline, antisocial, histrionic, or narcissistic personality disorder. Correlations between aggregated prototype and actual patient profiles provided evidence for convergent and discriminant validity, and a cluster-analytic procedure (Q-factor analysis) produced revised criteria for the four disorders that minimized the problem of comorbidity. In Study 2, a pilot sample of patients were interviewed using a clinical research interview that mirrors the way clinicians assess personality and PDs. The study yielded promising results with respect to the possibility of obtaining reliable Q-sort descriptions based on an interview that resembles a clinical interview rather than the direct-question format used in current Axis II structured interviews. It also produced strong correlations between Q-sort descriptions made by interview and those made independently by the treating clinician, further supporting the validity of the instrument. The findings suggest the potential utility of the SWAP as a measure of PDs and as a method for empirically refining Axis II categories and criteria.

Developing effective services for patients with personality disorders

OBJECTIVE

This review focused on empirical research that addressed the effectiveness of service models for the care of patients with personality disorders.

METHOD

Services discussed included those delivering acute care, such as crisis and emergency services and acute psychiatric hospitalization; continuing care, such as outpatient services, day hospital treatment, and assertive community treatment programs; and other community programming, such as integrated treatment for comorbid substance abuse and psychoeducational interventions for families of patients with personality disorders. The review focused on studies that included patients with personality disorders, and it measured outcomes relevant to patients with personality disorders. Evidence from randomized controlled trials was highlighted.

RESULTS

Few systematic studies of acute services were available. Community programming can decrease the risk of suicide attempts and reliance on inpatient admissions. Services must develop methods of ensuring compliance with treatment. Assertive community treatment for Axis II patients should be developed, implemented, and tested. Comprehensive programming for patients with personality disorders must include integrated treatment for substance abuse and family psychoeducational programs.

CONCLUSION

Promising new models of care for patients with personality disorders are ready for testing and wider application.

Patterns of short-term course in patients treated in a day unit for personality disorders

The objectives of the study were (1) to explore differences in the course for patients treated in a day unit specializing in personality disorders (PDs), and (2) to determine characteristics of patients with different courses and predictors of various courses. K-mean cluster analysis was applied to partition a sample of 128 patients, 101 with various PDs and 27 with axis I disorders only, into four groups representing different courses. The course was defined on the basis of global functioning (Health Sickness Rating Scale [HSRS]) at admission, discharge, and 3-years follow-up evaluation. The four courses were labeled good, fair, late improvement, and poor, demonstrating great variation in the short-term course among patients with PDs. Predictors were studied by means of polychotomous logistic regression using the patients with a fair course as the reference group. The dichotomy no PD/cluster C versus cluster A/B predicted a good versus a fair course. A poor work status the last year before admission and irregular discharge predicted a poor or late improvement course versus a fair course, also when controlling for PD clusters. None of the included variables discriminated between patients with a poor versus late improvement course.

Are personality disorders more frequent in early onset geriatric depression?

This preliminary study evaluates the prevalence of personality disorders (PD) in a sample of 37 elderly recovered depressed and non-demented patients, using the French version of the Vragenlijst voor Kenmezken van de Persoonlijkheid (VKP) or Questionnaire on Personality Traits (QPT). The prevalence of definite personality disorder was 65% with predominance of Cluster C and particularly dependent and avoidant PD. The rate of PDs was higher in early onset (73%) than in late onset (45%) geriatric depression, even though there is only a trend towards statistical significance (Chi square = 2.588, p = 0.107). These results are consistent with those of previous reports using different PD assessment methods, supporting evidence that the QPT could be useful in PD assessment of elderly French speaking patients.