Personality Constructs and Paradigms in the AlternativeDSM-5Model of Personality Disorder

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.

An Evolutionary Perspective on the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders

Recent work has nested the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) within several theoretical paradigms of personality and clinical psychology (e.g., multivariate, psychodynamic). This has both spurred on additional research and aided in practical application. Connecting the model to other theoretical heuristics may lead to further advances. One candidate for such a theory is that of evolutionary psychology, which attempts to provide explanations of human behavior (including personality traits) rooted in adaptation. In this article, we review and integrate the theoretical and empirical literature on the AMPD and evolutionary psychology, providing a synthesis of the two models in the hope of furthering the research and application of both.

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.

Comparing Measures of Criterion A to Better Understand Incremental Validity in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders distinguishes between the severity of personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and individual differences in personality disorder expression (Criterion B). Several Criterion A measures exist, but few studies have compared these measures with each other. Moreover, debates about whether the constructs of Criteria A and B are redundant (i.e., weak incremental validity) should be framed around how different Criterion A measures perform relative to others. This study of 204 undergraduate students evaluated multiple measures of Criterion A. These measures were strongly correlated with Criterion B, but evidenced incremental validity (39% of outcomes, 5% average additional variance explained) with outcomes of psychopathology and interpersonal impairments, and less consistent incremental validity with suicidality, aggression, and mental health utilization. We discuss how these results inform the construct of Criterion A relative to Criterion B and evaluate strengths/weaknesses of Criterion A measures.

Understanding personality pathology in a clinical sample of youth: study protocol for the longitudinal research project 'APOLO'

INTRODUCTION

We propose that a dimensional, multilayered perspective is well suited to study maladaptive personality development in youth. Such a perspective can help understand pathways to personality pathology and contribute to its early detection. The research project 'APOLO' (a Dutch language acronym for Adolescents and their Personality Development: a Longitudinal Study) is designed based on McAdams' integrative three-layered model of personality development and assesses the interaction between dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations, the narrative identity and functioning.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

APOLO is a longitudinal research project that takes place in two outpatient mental healthcare centres. Participants are youth between 12 years and 23 years and their parents. Data collection is set up to build a data set for scientific research, as well as to use the data for diagnostic assessment and systematic treatment evaluation of individual patients. Measurements are conducted half-yearly for a period of 3 years and consist of self-report and informant-report questionnaires and a semistructured interview. The included constructs fit the dimensional model of personality development: maladaptive personality traits (dispositional traits), social relations, stressful life events (characteristic adaptations), a turning point (narrative identity) and functioning (eg, achievement of youth specific milestones). Primary research questions will be analysed using structural equation modelling.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results will contribute to our understanding of (the development of) personality pathology as a complex phenomenon in which both structural personality characteristics as well as unique individual adaptations and experiences play a role. Furthermore, results will give directions for early detection and timely interventions. This study has been approved by the ethical review committee of the Utrecht University Faculty for Social and Behavioural Sciences (FETC17-092). Data distribution will be anonymous and results will be disseminated via communication canals appropriate for diverse audiences. This includes both clinical and scientific conferences, papers published in national and international peer-reviewed journals and (social) media platforms.

Applying the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders and the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure to the Classic Case of "Madeline G.": Novice and Expert Rater Convergences and Divergence

Prior research supports the learnability of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). However, researchers have yet to compare novice ratings on the AMPD's Level of Personality Functioning Scale and the 25 pathological personality traits with expert ratings. Furthermore, the AMPD has yet to be examined with the idiographic Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP). We compared the aggregated AMPD clinical profile of a group of psychology doctoral students who learned the AMPD to high levels of reliability to that of an expert rater using the crucible of the classical case of "Madeline G." Examination of AMPD and SWAP ratings of "Madeline G." revealed excellent overall concordance but suggests that novice raters tend to perceive lower levels of personality impairment.

Trading Patients: Applying the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders to Two Cases of DSM-5 Borderline Personality Disorder Over Time and Across Therapists

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) dimensionally defines personality pathology using severity of dysfunction and maladaptive style. As the empirical literature on the clinical utility of the AMPD grows, there is a need to examine changes in diagnostic profiles and personality expression in treatment over time. Assessing these changes in individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) is complicated by the tendency for patients to cycle through multiple therapists over the course of treatment leaving the potential for muddled diagnostic clarity and disjointed case conceptualizations. Following patient trajectories across therapists offers a unique opportunity to examine the AMPD’s sensitivity to and utility for capturing personality stability and change over time for patients with BPD. This article demonstrates the utility of the AMPD for two clinical cases in three distinct ways: (i) highlighting heterogeneity in BPD between patients, (ii) comparing improvements in personality severity and style over time, and (iii) elucidating profile change across therapist ratings. We present two patients diagnosed with DSM-5 Section II BPD, crossing between two therapists over the course of 3 years of psychodynamic psychotherapy. Treating clinicians rated patients for their respective treatment phases using the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), capturing severity, and the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5), capturing style. AMPD diagnostic profiles differentiated patients with BPD in both severity and style, and captured within-patient change beyond within-therapist response bias. Results indicated greater improvements in personality severity while personality style remained more stable. Implications for the patients’ treatment progress and associated challenges are discussed, as are considerations for the utility of the AMPD in therapy.

Assessing Self-Definition and Relatedness in Level of Personality Functioning

The two polarities model (TPM) of personality organizes psychological assessment and psychotherapy and connects to personality disorder diagnosis using the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). The authors developed scales assessing the TPM from an existing self-report measure for level of personality functioning (LPF), a core component of the AMPD. Iterative content analyses of the LPF measure yielded scales for Autonomy and Communion corresponding to dimensions of the TPM. The scales were refined via internal consistency analyses using a measure of psychological attachment and studied in development and validation samples. Associations with relevant external criteria were explored in a series of multiple regressions. The new content-based LPF scales were illustrated with a case vignette. Although the new Autonomy/Communion scales await further validation prior to clinical use, initial evidence suggests that they may bridge the nomological nets of the TPM and AMPD and potentially offer clinical utility in assessment and treatment planning.

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.

Integrating and distinguishing personality and psychopathology

OBJECTIVE

We asked authors of this Special Issue to answer the following four questions: (1) Is there evidence that personality and psychopathology can be integrated? (2) Is integration important? (3) Can they be distinguished? and (4) How can the difference be measured?

METHOD

We review each of the papers and place the special issue in a historical context.

RESULTS

Authors uniformly agreed that personality and psychopathology can be integrated within a common structure and that this is important. The third and fourth questions were more challenging. Though authors generally agreed that there is a distinction between the person and their mental health problems, articulations of that distinction were fuzzy and it is clear that current methods cannot adequately delineate these domains.

CONCLUSIONS

We summarize the issue by offering five directions for future research: (1) develop measurement tools that distinguish between the person, the context, and their transaction, (2) measure behavior and context at multiple timescales, (3) distinguish behavior and dysfunction in measurement, (4) use multimethod data to tap different levels of behavior, and (5) examine person-specific processes. Each of these directions comes with challenges, but the payoff of resolving them will be a more principled, evidence-based, and clinically useful model for the distinction between personality and psychopathology.

Using Interpersonal Dimensions of Personality and Personality Pathology to Examine Momentary and Idiographic Patterns of Alliance Rupture

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) integrates several theoretical models of personality functioning, including interpersonal theory. The interpersonal circumplex dimensions of warmth and dominance can be conceptualized as traits similar to those in AMPD Criterion B, but interpersonal theory also offers dynamic hypotheses about how these variables that change from moment to moment, which help to operationalize some of the processes alluded to in AMPD Criterion A. In the psychotherapy literature, dynamic interpersonal behaviors are thought to be critical for identifying therapeutic alliance ruptures, yet few studies have examined moment-to-moment interpersonal behaviors that are associated with alliance ruptures at an idiographic level. The current study examined the concurrent and cross-lagged relationships between interpersonal behaviors and alliance ruptures within each session in the famous Gloria films ("Three Approaches to Psychotherapy"). Interpersonal behaviors (warmth and dominance) as well as alliance ruptures (i.e., withdrawal and confrontation) were calculated at half minute intervals for each dyad. We identified distinct interpersonal patterns associated with alliance ruptures for each session: Gloria (patient)'s warmth was positively related with withdrawal ruptures concurrently in the session with Carl Rogers; Gloria's dominance and coldness were related with increased confrontation ruptures in the session with Fritz Perls concurrently, while her coldness was also predicted by confrontation ruptures at previous moments; lastly, both Gloria's dominance and Albert Ellis's submissiveness were positively related with withdrawal ruptures. These interpersonal patterns demonstrated the promise of using AMPD dimensions to conceptualize momentary interpersonal processes related to therapy ruptures, as well as the clinical importance of attuning to repetitive, dyad-specific interpersonal cues of ruptures within each session.

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.

Comparative Content Analysis of Self-Report Scales for Level of Personality Functioning

Content validity analyses of eight self-report instruments for assessing severity of personality disorder (PD), also known as Level of Personality Functioning (LPF), were conducted using the conceptual scheme of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD; APA, 2013). The item contents of these eight inventories were characterized for the LPF constructs of Identity (ID), Self-Direction (SD), Empathy (EM), and Intimacy (IN) along with the pathological personality trait domains of Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. Severity of pathology (SV) reflected in item content was also rated. Raters demonstrated robust agreement for AMPD and SV constructs across instruments. Similarity between instrument AMPD construct profiles was quantified by intraclass correlations (ICC). Results showed the instruments were generally similar in AMPD-construct coverage, but some important differences emerged. The subscales of the instruments also were characterized for the degree to which they reflect the four LPF (ID, SD, EM, IN) domain constructs. Collectively, these content validity comparisons clarify the equivalence of instruments for AMPD constructs and the relative proportions of construct coverage within instrument subscales. These results can inform future research with LPF self-report instruments and guide clinicians in selecting an LPF-related instrument for use in practice.

Introduction to the Special Series on the Personality Functioning Component of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD; American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ) was created to remedy the previously well-explicated limitations of the categorical DSM-IV personality disorders. The AMPD combines dimensional assessments of personality functioning (Criterion A) and traits (Criterion B), which can be used independently or together, and serve as the basis for defining six categorical disorder options. The Criterion A Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) defines a continuum characterized by the four elements of identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. Empirical work related to the LPFS has been growing, and this Journal of Personality Assessment special series features reports from a variety of research groups around the world. These studies provide contributions for better understanding the reliability, validity, and utility of the LPFS, as well as describing new measures that have been created to investigate personality functioning.

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.

Borderline personality disorder diagnosis in a new key

BACKGROUND

Conceptualizations of personality disorders (PD) are increasingly moving towards dimensional approaches. The definition and assessment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in regard to changes in nosology are of great importance to theory and practice as well as consumers. We studied empirical connections between the traditional DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BPD and Criteria A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD).

METHOD

Raters of varied professional backgrounds possessing substantial knowledge of PDs (N = 20) characterized BPD criteria with the four domains of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and 25 pathological personality trait facets. Mean AMPD values of each BPD criterion were used to support a nosological cross-walk of the individual BPD criteria and study various combinations of BPD criteria in their AMPD translation. The grand mean AMPD profile generated from the experts was compared to published BPD prototypes that used AMPD trait ratings and the DSM-5-III hybrid categorical-dimensional algorithm for BPD. Divergent comparisons with DSM-5-III algorithms for other PDs and other published PD prototypes were also examined.

RESULTS

Inter-rater reliability analyses showed generally robust agreement. The AMPD profile for BPD criteria rated by individual BPD criteria was not isomorphic with whole-person ratings of BPD, although they were highly correlated. Various AMPD profiles for BPD were generated from theoretically relevant but differing configurations of BPD criteria. These AMPD profiles were highly correlated and showed meaningful divergence from non-BPD DSM-5-III algorithms and other PD prototypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Results show that traditional DSM BPD diagnosis reflects a common core of PD severity, largely composed of LPFS and the pathological traits of anxiousness, depressively, emotional lability, and impulsivity. Results confirm the traditional DSM criterion-based BPD diagnosis can be reliably cross-walked with the full AMPD scheme, and both approaches share substantial construct overlap. This relative equivalence suggests the vast clinical and research literatures associated with BPD may be brought forward with DSM-5-III diagnosis of BPD.