The construct validity of general and specific dimensions of personality pathology

Personality Functioning, Problems in Living, and Personality Traits

The publication of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) was a signpost achievement in the personality assessment. However, research on the AMPD has generally not led to either a deeper understanding of personality disorder or personality assessment or new ideas about how to provide better care for people with personality disorder diagnoses. A significant portion of research has focused on narrow issues and appears to be driven in part by ideological differences between scholars who prefer Criterion A (personality functioning) or Criterion B (maladaptive traits). I trace these issues to ambiguity about the concept of personality functioning as defined in the AMPD and its conceptual distinction from personality traits and problems in living. In this paper, I reground these concepts in coherent and distinct definitions, elaborate upon the implications of their differences, and show how these differences can help clarify and reorient AMPD research to focus on generating clinically useful models for personality pathology and personality assessment.

Personality disorders: the impact of severity on societal costs

Personality disorders (PDs) are associated with high levels of societal costs. However, previous research has found limited or no evidence of unique contributions of individual PD categories on the overall level of societal costs. Recent research supports the validity of PD as a dimensional construct, and PD severity may be a better predictor of societal costs than specific PD categories. The aim of this study was to explore if PD severity could predict the level of societal costs among treatment-seeking patients with PDs, while controlling for the impact of comorbid mental health and substance use disorders. Four different severity indicators were explored: the number of PDs, the total number of PD criteria, the number of BPD criteria, and the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) from the alternative model in DSM-5. Participants (n = 798/794) were retrieved from the quality register of the Norwegian Network for Personality Disorders for the period 2017-2020. Societal costs were assessed using a structured interview covering the six-month period prior to assessment. Diagnoses and diagnostic criteria were determined using a semi-structured diagnostic interview (SCID-5-PD and M.I.N.I), and the LPFS was assessed by the LPFS-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) questionnaire. Statistics included multiple regression analyses. None of the severity indicators were significant predictors of overall societal costs among treatment-seeking patients, and effect sizes were small.

Differentiating between intrapsychic symptoms and behavioral expressions of borderline personality disorder in relation to childhood emotional maltreatment and emotion dysregulation: an exploratory investigation

BACKGROUND

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental disorder, characterized by pronounced instability in emotions, self-image, and interpersonal relationships. Experiences of childhood maltreatment are among the risk factors for BPD. While self-damaging and aggressive acts often occur, not every person with the disorder shows markedly dysregulated behaviour. Internalized symptoms, such as shame, loneliness, and self-disgust tend to be more pervasive and persist after clinical remission.

OBJECTIVE

Here we investigated associations between BPD symptom severity, childhood maltreatment, and emotion regulation difficulties. We further explored if the Borderline Symptom List (BSL) could potentially be used to differentiate between internalized symptoms (intrapsychic strain) and externalized symptoms (dysregulated behaviours) in future research.

METHOD

187 women with at least mild BPD symptoms (65% having a diagnosis of BPD) completed the BSL 23 including its 11-item supplement (BSL-S), the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). Participants further underwent a semi-structured clinical interview to assess BPD criteria (International Personality Disorder Examination, IPDE). Multivariate models and regression-based bootstrapping analyses were performed to test direct and indirect effects.

RESULTS

Childhood trauma severity, especially emotional abuse, positively predicted BPD symptom severity. A significant indirect effect through emotion regulation difficulties was found (k2=.56). When exploring associations with BPD criteria (IPDE), the BSL-23 mean significantly correlated with separation anxiety, identity and mood problems, chronic emptiness, suicidal ideation, and dissociation, while the BSL-S correlated with self-harming impulsive behaviour and anger outbursts.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings complement previous research, highlighting the role of childhood maltreatment and emotion regulation difficulties in BPD. While our findings need to be seen as preliminary and interpreted with caution, they suggest that the BSL may be used to differentiate between internalized symptoms and behavioural expressions of BPD in future research. Such a distinction might help to deepen the understanding of this complex heterogenous disorder.

The Relationship Between Early Maladaptive Schemas and Cluster C Personality Disorder Traits: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the literature on the relationship between early maladaptive schemas (EMSs) and Cluster C personality disorders (PDs). Our aim was to clarify which of the 18 EMSs exhibit the strongest associations and are most frequently endorsed in clinical and non-clinical samples with Cluster C PDs and traits.

RECENT FINDINGS

After initially screening 2622 records, 12 studies were selected with 5310 participants. Meta-analyses of the raw correlation coefficients for each EMS-Cluster C PD link (3-8 studies per meta-analysis) indicated that the 18 EMSs were significantly related to all three Cluster C PDs with r's ranging from .13 to .63. However, when considering endorsement rates among multiple regression studies that controlled for the EMSs intercorrelations and the effects of other PD traits and demographics, specific EMS constellations emerged for each Cluster C PD. Overall, the findings of the current paper suggest that Cluster C PDs might be conceptualized on the basis of a hybrid EMS model, in which all EMSs contribute to global personality dysfunction whereas specific EMS patterns reflect unique personality disorder style expressions. Longitudinal research with appropriate methodology is needed to draw more definite conclusions on the EMSs-Cluster C PDs relationships.

ICD-11 personality disorder features in the danish general population: Cut-offs and prevalence rates for severity levels

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence rates and correlates of personality disorders (PD) are relevant to health care policy and planning.

OBJECTIVES

To present normative data for self-reported ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) features including tentative cut-off scores and prevalence rates for severity levels along with psychosocial correlates.

METHODS

The Personality Disorder Severity ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) scale and criterion measures of impairment were administered to a social-demographically stratified sample of Danish citizens (N = 8,941) of which 3,044 delivered complete data. Item-Response Theory (IRT) was employed to indicate cut-offs based on standard deviations from the latent mean.

RESULTS

The unidimensionality of the PDS-ICD-11 score was supported and IRT analysis suggested norm-based thresholds at latent severity levels. Expected associations with criterion measures were found.

CONCLUSION

The normative data portray ICD-11 PD features in the general population and allow for interpretation of PDS-ICD-11 scores (e.g., scores of 12, 16, and 19 may indicate mild, moderate, and severe dysfunction), which may inform health care policy and planning. A total weighted prevalence of 6.9 % of the Danish general population is estimated to have clinically significant personality dysfunction, proportionally composed of Mild (4.8 %), Moderate (1.2 %), and Severe (0.9 %) levels. Future research should corroborate these findings using relevant clinical samples and methods.

Developing and Validating a Facial Emotion Recognition Task With Graded Intensity

Facial emotion recognition (FER) tasks are often digitally altered to vary expression intensity; however, such tasks have unknown psychometric properties. In these studies, an FER task was developed and validated-the Graded Emotional Face Task (GEFT)-which provided an opportunity to examine the psychometric properties of such tasks. Facial expressions were altered to produce five intensity levels for six emotions (e.g., 40% anger). In Study 1, 224 undergraduates viewed subsets of these faces and labeled the expressions. An item selection algorithm was used to maximize internal consistency and balance gender and ethnicity. In Study 2, 219 undergraduates completed the final GEFT and a multimethod battery of validity measures. Finally, in Study 3, 407 undergraduates oversampled for borderline personality disorder (BPD) completed the GEFT and a self-report BPD measure. Broad FER scales (e.g., overall anger) demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity; however, more specific subscales (e.g., 40% anger) had more variable psychometric properties. Notably, ceiling/floor effects appeared to decrease both internal consistency and limit external validity correlations. The findings are discussed from the perspective of measurement issues in the social cognition literature.

A borderline focused Reflective Functioning measure - Interrater reliability of the Mentalization Breakdown Interview

OBJECTIVE

Mentalizing difficulties can be considered the core psychopathology of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Typical failures of mentalizing are targets in therapy for BPD. They are related to severe distress, relational problems, self-destructive behaviors, violence, or substance misuse. A major obstacle in BPD treatment research is the lack of suitable and easily administrated methods to assess mentalizing ability during treatment. The Mentalization Breakdown Interview (MBI) is a new method for capturing episodic mentalizing difficulties occurring in close relationships. Interviews are videotaped and scored in accordance with the Reflective Functioning Scale (MBI-RF). In this way the patients' ability to retrospectively reflect over such episodes are evaluated. This study investigates the interrater reliability of MBI-RF.

METHODS

The study includes videotapes of MBIs from 32 patients with BPD in an outpatient clinic specialized on mentalization-based treatment (MBT). The MBIs were performed by MBT therapists. Three certified raters scored MBI-RF.

RESULTS

The interrater reliability was good for MBI-RF.

CONCLUSIONS

The MBI is promising as a BPD-focused method for the assessment of Reflective Functioning.

Mapping established psychopathology scales onto the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP)

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) organizes phenotypes of mental disorder based on empirical covariation, offering a comprehensive organizational framework from narrow symptoms to broader patterns of psychopathology. We argue that established self-report measures of psychopathology from the pre-HiTOP era should be systematically integrated into HiTOP to foster cumulative research and further the understanding of psychopathology structure. Hence, in this study, we mapped 92 established psychopathology (sub)scales onto the current HiTOP working model using data from an extensive battery of self-report assessments that was completed by community participants and outpatients (N = 909). Content validity ratings of the item pool were used to select indicators for a bifactor-(S-1) model of the p factor and five HiTOP spectra (i.e., internalizing, thought disorder, detachment, disinhibited externalizing, and antagonistic externalizing). The content-based HiTOP scales were validated against personality disorder diagnoses as assessed by standardized interviews. We then located established scales within the taxonomy by estimating the extent to which scales reflected higher-level HiTOP dimensions. The analyses shed light on the location of established psychopathology scales in HiTOP, identifying pure markers and blends of HiTOP spectra, as well as pure markers of the p factor (i.e., scales assessing mentalizing impairment and suspiciousness/epistemic mistrust).

Predicting depression outcomes throughout inpatient treatment using the general and specific personality disorder factors

BACKGROUND

Clinical intuition suggests that personality disorders hinder the treatment of depression, but research findings are mixed. One reason for this might be the way in which current assessment measures conflate general aspects of personality disorders, such as overall severity, with specific aspects, such as stylistic tendencies. The goal of this study was to clarify the unique contributions of the general and specific aspects of personality disorders to depression outcomes.

METHODS

Patients admitted to the Menninger Clinic, Houston, between 2012 and 2015 (N = 2352) were followed over a 6-8-week course of multimodal inpatient treatment. Personality disorder symptoms were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition Axis II Personality Screening Questionnaire at admission, and depression severity was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 every fortnight. General and specific personality disorder factors estimated with a confirmatory bifactor model were used to predict latent growth curves of depression scores in a structural equation model.

RESULTS

The general factor predicted higher initial depression scores but not different rates of change. By contrast, the specific borderline factor predicted slower rates of decline in depression scores, while the specific antisocial factor predicted a U shaped pattern of change.

CONCLUSIONS

Personality disorder symptoms are best represented by a general factor that reflects overall personality disorder severity, and specific factors that reflect unique personality styles. The general factor predicts overall depression severity while specific factors predict poorer prognosis which may be masked in prior studies that do not separate the two.

Transdiagnostic Associations With Interpersonal and Affective Variability in Borderline Personality Pathology

Emotional and behavioral variability are unifying characteristics of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Ambulatory assessment (AA) has been used to quantify this variability in terms of the categorical BPD diagnosis, but evidence suggests that BPD instead reflects general personality pathology. This study aimed to clarify the conceptualization of BPD by mapping indices of variability in affect, interpersonal behavior, and perceptions of others onto general and specific dimensions of personality pathology. A sample of participants who met diagnostic criteria for BPD (n = 129) and healthy controls (n = 47) reported on their daily interactions during a 21-day AA protocol. Multilevel SEM was used to examine associations between shared and specific variance in maladaptive traits with dynamic patterns of functioning. The authors found that variability is an indicator of shared trait variance and Negative Affectivity, not any other specific traits, reinforcing the idea that BPD is best understood as general personality pathology.

Severity in the ICD-11 personality disorder model: Evaluation in a Spanish mixed sample

Severity is the main component of the ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) classification, but pertinent instruments have only recently been developed. We analyzed the psychometric properties of the ICD-11 Personality Disorder Severity scale (PDS-ICD-11) in a mixed sample of 726 community and clinical subjects. We also examined how the different components of the ICD-11 PD system -five trait domains, the borderline pattern specifier, and severity, all of them measured through self-reports- are interconnected and operate together. PDS-ICD-11 properties were adequate and similar to those of the original instrument. However, regressions and factor analyses showed a considerable overlap of severity with the five personality domains and the borderline specifier (72.6%). Bifactor modeling resulted in a general factor of PD (g-PD) that was not equivalent to severity nor improved criterion validity. The whole ICD-11 PD system, i.e., five personality domains, borderline, and severity, explained an average of 43.6% of variance of external measures of well-being, disability, and clinical problems, with severity contributing 4.8%. Suggestions to further improve the ICD-11 PD taxonomy include remodeling the present definition of severity to give more weight to the real-life consequences of traits.

Anankastia or Psychoticism? Which One Is Better Suited for the Fifth Trait in the Pathological Big Five: Insight From the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits Perspective

Both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5 (Section III) classification systems introduced dimensional models of personality disorders, with five broad domains called the Pathological Big Five. Nevertheless, despite large congruence between the two models, there are also substantial differences between them, with the most evident being the conceptualization of the fifth dimension: Anankastia in the ICD-11 vs. Psychoticism in the DSM-5. The current paper seeks an answer to the question of which domain is structurally better justified as the fifth trait in the dimensional model of personality disorders. For this purpose, we provided both a conceptual and empirical comparison of the ICD-11 and the DSM-5 models, adopting the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits-a comprehensive model of personality structure built on the basis of the higher-order factors of the Big Five-as a reference framework. Two studies were conducted: the first on a sample of 242 adults (52.9% female; M age = 30.63, SD age = 11.82 years), and the second on a sample of 355 adults (50.1% female; M age = 29.97, SD age = 12.26 years) from the non-clinical population. The Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), and the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits Questionnaire-Short Form (CPM-Q-SF) were administered in both studies, together with the PID-5BF+M algorithm for measuring a common (ICD-11 + DSM-5) six-domain model. Obtained empirical findings generally support our conceptual considerations that the ICD-11 model more comprehensively covered the area of personality pathology than the DSM-5 model, with Anankastia revealed as a more specific domain of personality disorders as well as more cohesively located within the overall personality structure, in comparison to Psychoticism. Moreover, the results corroborated the bipolar relations of Anankastia vs. Disinhibition domains. These results also correspond with the pattern of relationships found in reference to the Big Five domains of normal personality, which were also included in the current research. All our findings were discussed in the context of suggestions for the content and conceptualization of pathological personality traits that flow from the CPM as a comprehensive model of personality structure including both pathological and normal poles of personality dimensions.

Validation of the Three-Item Screener for Personality Disorders From the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-3)

We previously developed a three-item screener for identifying respondents with any personality disorder (PD) using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP). The current goal was to examine the convergent validity of the IIP-3 with other PD screeners and diagnostic tools and to investigate its relationship to measures of adult attachment and emotion regulation. The sample consisted of participants from five studies (total N = 852), with data from collateral informants available for a subsample (N = 353). Despite its brevity, the IIP-3 showed moderate to strong relationships with other longer PD screeners, with PD symptom scores from the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP-IV), and with a global rating of PD severity. It was most sensitive to the stylistic aspects of PD typical of the traditional DSM cluster B (dramatic, expressive) PDs. These results emerged with data from both participants and informants, although correlations using informant data were generally smaller.

The Construct Validity of the ICD-11 Severity of Personality Dysfunction Under Scrutiny of Object-Relations Theory

The current classification of personality disorder in ICD-11 includes a description of personality functioning, derived from a number of theoretical paradigms, but most notably consistent with the psychodynamic approach. Concurrently, an object-relations model of personality functioning in a dimensional assessment of severity is provided in the Structured Interview of Personality Organization-Revised (STIPO-R). To date, there are no published measures of International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11) personality severity, though the construct is very comparable to the concepts assessed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) levels of personality functioning concept, which is measured by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR). This study examined the validity of ICD-11 personality functioning, as measured by the LPFS-SR, by evaluating its associations with the STIPO-R in Kurdistan region. The samples included 231 University students and 419 inpatient participants across four hospitals (267 with a diagnosed personality disorder). All the components of LPFS-SR and STIPO-R were positively and significantly intercorrelated. The components of each measure discriminated PD and non-PD patients from a University, non-clinical group adequately. Despite slightly better performance of the STIPO-R in this discrimination, the measures had a high congruence in predicting personality dysfunction. Overall, the findings of the present study support the validity of ICD-11 construct for evaluating personality functioning.

Interpersonal Problems in Parents and Adolescent Borderline Personality Disorder Features

Research shows that parental personality pathology is associated with borderline personality disorder features and internalizing/externalizing symptoms in offspring. However, studies have been limited by DSM-IV-based assessments of parental personality pathology. The authors leveraged evidence that interpersonal problems described by the Interpersonal Circumplex align with Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders and therefore used a measure of interpersonal problems to capture parental personality pathology. The authors hypothesized that parental interpersonal problems would be associated with a latent variable of borderline features in adolescent offspring. They also examined whether this relation with offspring borderline features existed above and beyond relations with offspring internalizing/externalizing symptoms, age, and gender. The sample included 524 inpatient adolescents (M_age = 15.31, 62.4% female) and their parents (80.5% female). Parental interpersonal problems demonstrated unique relationships with adolescent borderline features and externalizing symptoms, but not internalizing symptoms. Implications of the results, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

Personality Functioning and Mentalizing in Patients With Subthreshold or Diagnosed Borderline Personality Disorder: Implications for ICD-11

The 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11) defines personality disorder according to personality functioning, which relates to self- and interpersonal functioning. The aim of the present study was to assess the relationship between mentalizing and personality functioning in patients with subthreshold or diagnosed borderline personality disorder. A total of 116 eligible participants were included. Mentalizing was assessed using the Mentalization Questionnaire (MZQ), personality functioning (self- and interpersonal functioning) was assessed using the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF), and borderline severity was assessed using the Zanarini Rating Scale (ZAN-BPD). Mediation analysis was employed to test if mentalizing accounted for the relationship between borderline severity and self- and interpersonal functioning. We found a significant relationship between borderline severity and both subscales of the LPFS-BF. Mentalizing fully and significantly mediated the relationship between borderline severity and interpersonal functioning. However, mentalizing only partly mediated the relationship between borderline severity and self-functioning. Controlling for the covariates gender and age did not impact the results. Mentalizing is likely to be involved in the ICD-11 model of personality functioning, especially interpersonal functioning. This could emphasize the relevance of therapy aimed at strengthening mentalizing abilities when treating personality pathology in general and people with borderline personality disorder in particular. However, self-functioning may be more nuanced, as aspects other than mentalizing also influence self-functioning. The study is explorative in nature and has methodological limitations that require caution in the interpretation and generalizability.

How does level of personality functioning inform clinical management and treatment? Implications for ICD-11 classification of personality disorder severity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Edition (ICD-11) classifies personality disturbance according to levels of severity. This article reviews the literature on levels of personality functioning in relation to clinical management and treatment, and proposes how these findings apply to the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings were primarily derived from studies using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), Kernberg's Level of Personality Organization, and the general P-factor of personality disorder. Severity of personality dysfunction is related to treatment outcome, risk of dropout, therapeutic alliance, readiness for treatment, risk of harm to self or others, risk of dissociation and psychotic-like breaks, coherence in narrative identity, reflective functioning, and epistemic trust.

SUMMARY

The overall level of personality disorder severity indicates risk of negative outcomes and may be used as decision tool for 'personalized medicine' and required treatment intensity (e.g., strength of alliance and the need for establishing epistemic trust). Beyond the ICD-11 guidelines for determining personality disorder severity, these implications also apply to practitioners using comparable frameworks such as the DSM-5 LPFS and Kernberg's Level of Personality Organization. Future research should focus on the interaction of severity with trait qualifiers in relation to clinical management.

DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning: Refocusing Personality Disorder on What It Means to Be Human

Level of Personality Functioning (LPF) represents the entry criterion (Criterion A) of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). It is defined as a dimensional general severity criterion common to all personality disorders and conceptually independent of personality types or traits, and it represents maladaptive self (identity and self-direction) and interpersonal (empathy and intimacy) functioning. We review the history, measurement, and significance of LPF. We show that the inclusion of LPF in the AMPD is well justified if it is defined as a general adaptive failure of a subjective intrapsychic system needed to fulfill adult life tasks. If so defined, LPF distinguishes itself from maladaptive traits (Criterion B of the AMPD) and captures the contribution humans make as agentic authors to the interpretation and management of the self. While Criterion B maladaptive traits provide important descriptive nuance to manifestations of personality pathology, maladaptive LPF is conditional to the diagnosis of personality disorder.

Comorbidity in borderline personality: understanding dynamics in development

Borderline personality disorder is marked by high levels of comorbidity in both adolescent and adult populations. However, the mechanisms involved in the development of comorbidity in BPD remain unclear. To address this issue, the current paper proposes the use of dynamic mutualism theory as a valuable and underexplored framework for investigating comorbidity in BPD from a developmental perspective. Specifically, we discuss how predictions of dynamic mutualism can be extended to better understand the onset, maintenance, and interplay of BPD symptoms with other forms of psychopathology over time. Moreover, we suggest that mutualistic interactions among internalizing and externalizing features throughout early development may foster the emergence of BPD symptoms in adolescence and beyond. Next, we discuss methodological approaches for testing mutualism and review indirect evidence that supports the role of mutualistic processes in the emergence and maintenance of BPD and its comorbidities. We conclude with methodological cautions and recommendations for future studies.

The p factor and dimensional structural models of youth personality pathology and psychopathology

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is a developing dimensional nosology which provides a joint framework for study of psychopathology and personality pathology. Dimensional structural models of psychopathology often include an overarching dimension of psychopathology (p factor) representing covariation among all forms of psychopathology. The p factor can be recovered in youth and adult samples, and has been found to relate to personality traits in similar ways in youth and adults. However, placement of personality pathology in an overarching psychopathology structure has almost exclusively been investigated in adults. We review evidence for the relationships between normal-range and pathological personality traits and psychopathology in adults and youth, ultimately making the case for study of a joint personality - psychopathology framework in youth.

Antisocial Disorders in Adolescence and Youth, According to Structural, Emotional, and Cognitive Transdiagnostic Variables: A Systematic Review

Transdiagnostic causal variables have been identified that have allowed understanding the origin and maintenance of psychopathologies in parsimonious explanatory models of antisocial disorders. However, it is necessary to systematize the information published in the last decade. The aim of the study was to identify through a systematic review, the structural, emotional and cognitive transdiagnostic variables in antisocial disorders of adolescence and youth. Recommendations for systematic reviews and meta-extraction and analysis of information according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), the Cochrane Collaboration and Campbell were followed. We found 19 articles from 110 reviewed documents. The results indicated that at a structural level there is a general psychopathological factor (psychopathy or externalizing), non-emotional callousness and impulsivity from behavioral inhibition and activation systems, and negative affect traits as base structures. In the emotional level, the study found a risk component from emotional dysregulation and experiential avoidance. In the cognitive level, a key role of anger-rumination and violent ideation as explanatory variables of antisocial disorders. We concluded that the interaction of these identified variables makes it possible to generate an evidence-based transdiagnostic model.

Symptom-level analysis of DSM-IV/DSM-5 personality pathology in later life: Hierarchical structure and predictive validity across self- and informant ratings

Dissatisfaction with the categorical model of personality disorder led to several investigations on alternative, dimensional systems. The majority of these studies were conducted at the syndrome-level where each diagnostic criterion is summed or averaged within each disorder. Studies at the symptom-level have identified symptom dimensions that define and cut across categories, but the number and nature of dimensions varies across studies. The purpose of the present study was to examine the hierarchical structure and impact of personality pathology at the symptom-level across self- and informant ratings in a large community sample of older adults (N = 1,630; ages 55 to 64). Results indicated that multiple structural patterns can be organized within a common hierarchical framework, with a general factor of maladjustment at the top, 2 broad dimensions of internalizing and externalizing pathology directly below, and progressively more specific symptom dimensions toward the bottom. Factors at each level of the hierarchy were similar across self- and informant ratings. The 4-factor model showed significant incremental validity in predicting a range of life outcomes over simpler models, while increasingly complex models incrementally but modestly improved predictive power. Several consistencies emerged between the current findings and prior factor analytic studies. The most unexpected result was the conspicuous absence of a disinhibition factor reflecting antisocial and impulsivity-related problems. This anomaly may involve the older age of our sample and the changing expression of personality pathology in later life. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Comparing Hierarchical Models of Personality Pathology

Two dimensional, hierarchical classification models of personality pathology have emerged as alternatives to traditional categorical systems: multi-tiered models with increasing numbers of factors and models that distinguish between a general factor of severity and specific factors reflecting style. Using a large sample (N=840) with a range of psychopathology, we conducted exploratory factor analyses of individual personality disorder criteria to evaluate the validity of these conceptual structures. We estimated an oblique, "unfolding" hierarchy and a bifactor model, then examined correlations between these and multi-method functioning measures to enrich interpretation. Four-factor solutions for each model, reflecting rotations of each other, fit well and equivalently. The resulting structures are consistent with previous empirical work and provide support for each theoretical model.

Schema therapy conceptualization of personality functioning and traits in ICD-11 and DSM-5

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Schema therapy conceptualizes personality disorders in terms of modes and underlying schemas. This article reviews the literature on schema therapy conceptualization of personality disorder functioning and traits, and proposes how these findings apply to novel personality disorder classification in ICD-11 and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Maladaptive schemas and modes are generally associated with personality dysfunction and traits in conceptually coherent ways. The healthy adult mode, a transdiagnostic core concept in schema therapy, corresponds to the ICD-11 and DSM-5-AMPD features of core personality functioning. Modes and underlying schemas substantially overlap with specific ICD-11 and DSM-5-AMPD traits, which denote individual themes and styles of personality dysfunction.

SUMMARY

The dimensional personality disorder framework in ICD-11 and DSM-5-AMPD is largely compatible with the schema therapy model. The ICD-11 and DSM-5-AMPD provide a scientifically derived and theory-free framework for all practitioners, which may be connected to clinical theory of schema therapy in a coherent manner. Level of personality functioning can be conceptualized as healthy adult functioning (e.g. sense of identity, self-worth, emotion regulation, intimacy, and fulfillment), which inform intensity of treatment. Trait qualifiers can be conceptualized by associated modes (e.g., compliant surrender) and underlying schemas (e.g. abandonment), which inform focus and style of treatment.

Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders

BACKGROUND

The ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders focuses on core personality dysfunction, while allowing the practitioner to classify three levels of severity (Mild Personality Disorder, Moderate Personality Disorder, and Severe Personality Disorder) and the option of specifying one or more prominent trait domain qualifiers (Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Disinhibition, Dissociality, and Anankastia). Additionally, the practitioner is also allowed to specify a Borderline Pattern qualifier. This article presents how the ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification may be applied in clinical practice using five brief cases.

CASE PRESENTATION

(1) a 29-year-old woman with Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity, Disinhibition, and Dissociality; (2) a 36-year-old man with Mild Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Detachment; (3) a 26-year-old man with Severe Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Detachment; (4) a 19-year-old woman with Personality Difficulty, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Anankastia; (5) a 53-year-old man with Moderate Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Anankastia and Dissociality.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification was applicable to five clinical cases, which were classified according to Personaity Disorder severity and trait domain qualifiers. We propose that the classification of severity may help inform clinical prognosis and intensity of treatment, whereas the coding of trait qualifiers may help inform the focus and style of treatment. Empirical investigation of such important aspects of clinical utility are warranted.

Illuminating ipsative change in personality disorder and normal personality: A multimethod examination from a prospective longitudinal perspective

Research suggests that both personality disorder (PD) and normal personality change as systems of variables (e.g., the general factor of PD), rather than as individual variables (e.g., neuroticism). Consequently, understanding PD and normal personality as multidimensional systems may yield additional insights over traditional single-variable approaches. Normal personality change has been attributed to increase across adaptive traits (i.e., the maturity principle), suggesting that shifts in the overall magnitude of construct expression plays a role in systemic change. We examined the extent to which total ipsative, system-level change was accounted for by shifts in the overall level of constructs (i.e., severity/maturity) as well as shifts in the configuration of PD and normal personality (i.e., style) across self-report and structured interview. Results demonstrated that overall change in PD and normal personality measured via self-report reflected both stylistic and severity change, whereas structured interview of PD primarily reflected shifts in profile severity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).