Personality Disorders Are Not as We Thought: Hierarchical Factor Structure at the Criterion Level

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders: Assessment, Convergent and Discriminant Validity, and a Look to the Future

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) is a dimensional, empirically based diagnostic system developed to overcome the serious limitations of traditional categories. We review the mounting evidence on its convergent and discriminant validity, with an incursion into the less-studied ICD-11 system. In the literature, the AMPD's Pathological Trait Model (Criterion B) shows excellent convergence with normal personality traits, and it could be useful as an organizing framework for mental disorders. In contrast, Personality Functioning (Criterion A) cannot be distinguished from personality traits, lacks both discriminant and incremental validity, and has a shaky theoretical background. We offer some suggestions with a view to the future. These include removing Criterion A, using the real-life consequences of traits as indicators of severity, delving into the dynamic mechanisms underlying traits, and furthering the integration of currently disengaged psychological paradigms that can shape a sounder clinical science.

A third hierarchical level of narrower traits for the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire

Current dimensional taxonomies of personality disorder show a stronger empirical grounding than categories, but may lack the necessary level of detail to make accurate predictions and case formulations. We need to further develop the lower levels of the hierarchy until reaching the building blocks of personality pathology. The Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ) is well-suited to this purpose due to its multilayered structure and its agreement with the official dimensional classifications. We disaggregated the 18 DAPP-BQ mid-level facets through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 3233 community subjects and outpatients. We obtained a set of 72 clinically relevant, narrower subfacets, which were reliable, well-fitted to the data, and invariant between clinical and community subjects and between the sexes. This third level of abstraction increases by 4.7% the capacity to predict DSM categorical personality disorders, gives a particular advantage in capturing dependent, histrionic, paranoid, obsessive, and schizoid features and can provide the detailed information that clinical decisions demand.

Toward an Integrated Model of Pathological Personality Traits: Common Hierarchical Structure of the PID-5 and the DAPP-BQ

A dimensional classification seems to be the next move in the personality disorders field. However, it is not clear whether there is one dimensional model or many, or whether the currently available dimensional instruments measure the same traits. To help clarify these issues, the authors administered the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP-BQ) to 414 psychiatric outpatients. Factor analyses showed that a common hierarchical structure underlies both instruments, even if each one measures slightly different aspects of it. Disattenuated correlations indicated that, at the lower order level, two thirds of the PID-5 and DAPP-BQ facets measure essentially the same traits, although the pairings were not exactly as predicted. Among higher order domains, only PID Negative Affectivity and Detachment converged unambiguously with DAPP Emotional Dysregulation and Inhibition. Overall, the PID-5 and the DAPP-BQ reflect, with small divergences, one and the same structure of pathological personality traits.

Personality Disorders in the ICD-11: Spanish Validation of the PiCD and the SASPD in a Mixed Community and Clinical Sample

The International Classification of Diseases–11th revision (ICD-11) classification of personality disorders is the official diagnostic system that is used all over the world, and it has recently been renewed. However, as yet very few data are available on its performance. This study examines the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), which assesses the personality domains of the system, and the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD), which determines severity. The Spanish versions of the questionnaires were administered to a community (n = 2,522) and a clinical sample (n = 797). Internal consistency was adequate in the PiCD (α = .75 to .84) but less so in the SASPD (α = .64 and .73). Factor analyses suggested a unidimensional or bidimensional structure for severity, while revealing that the personality trait qualifiers are organized into four factors: negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, and a bipolar domain of disinhibition–anankastia. The mutual relationships between traits and severity were analyzed, as well as the ability of the whole system to identify clinical subjects. Although further improvements are required, the results generally support the use of the PiCD and the SASPD and help substantiate the new ICD-11 taxonomy that underlies them.

Personality Disorders as Emergent Interpersonal Syndromes: Psychopathic Personality as a Case Example

Personality disorders have long been bedeviled by a host of conceptual and methodological quandaries. Starting from the assumption that personality disorders are inherently interpersonal conditions that reflect folk concepts of social impairment, the authors contend that a subset of personality disorders, rather than traditional syndromes, are emergent interpersonal syndromes (EISs): interpersonally malignant configurations (statistical interactions) of distinct personality dimensions that may be only modestly, weakly, or even negatively correlated. Preliminary support for this perspective derives from a surprising source, namely, largely forgotten research on the intercorrelations among the subscales of select MMPI/MMPI-2 clinical scales. Using psychopathic personality as a case example, the authors offer provisional evidence for the EIS hypothesis from four lines of research and delineate its implications for personality disorder theory, research, and classification. Conceptualizing some personality disorders as EISs elucidates long-standing quandaries and controversies in the psychopathology literature and affords fruitful avenues for future investigation.

The General Criteria for Personality Disorders Assessed by Interview: Do They Still Have a Role to Play?

On the path to developing dimensional models of personality disorder (PD), we are at risk of leaving key diagnostic aspects behind. The general criteria for PD may be important ones because they reflect the defining aspects of personality pathology: long duration, independence from psychopathological states, and harmfulness. We assessed these criteria by interview in a sample of 362 psychiatric outpatients after administering the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+. The result was a 42.5% fall in self-reported endorsements, due to misinterpretations (11.5%), short duration of traits or contamination by state psychopathology (9.8%), and traits being non-harmful (21.2%). However, not all personality traits and disorders underwent correction to the same extent, and ultimately, the interview did not improve the prediction of clinical variables. These findings raise doubts about the practical relevance of the general criteria for PD and support the role of self-report questionnaires for diagnostic purposes.