Further Validation of the Response Inconsistency Scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5

Stalking perpetration through the lens of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

Emerging dimensional models of personality disorders such as the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) provide new opportunities to explore the associations between personality pathology and harmful interpersonal behaviours such as stalking perpetration. Two goals are pursued by this study: (a) To document associations between stalking, level of personality pathology, and pathological personality domains/facets; and (b) to determine the relative importance of maladaptive personality facets in the statistical prediction of stalking. Data from 1489 young adults (18-30 years old) from a community sample were analysed. Moderate positive significant correlations were found between stalking, level of personality pathology, and maladaptive personality domains. A clear gradient of severity of stalking behaviours was found across five severity degrees of personality pathology. Dominance analyses revealed that Deceitfulness was the most dominant statistical predictor in women. Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, a facet from the Psychoticism domain, made an important contribution in the prediction of stalking in men only. Impulsivity was a key predictor in both genders but more markedly in men. Results suggest that the AMPD represents a useful framework to study stalking perpetration. Identification of key personality predictors might prove relevant for identifying risk factors, underlying motives, and treatment targets for stalking perpetrators.

Implementation of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 Dimensional Models of Maladaptive Personality Traits Into Pre-bariatric Assessment

Background: Personality pathology does not have to be a contraindication to a bariatric surgery if a proper pre-surgical assessment is done. Indicating subgroups of patients with their specific needs could help tailor interventions and improve surgical treatment outcomes. Objectives: Using the Alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 model for PDs to detect subgroups of patients with obesity based on a specific constellation of maladaptive personality traits and the level of overall personality impairment. Methods: 272 consecutively consented patients who underwent a standard pre-surgical psychological assessment. The majority were women (58.0%), age range was 22-79 years (M = 48.06, SD = 10.70). Patients' average body mass index (BMI) was 43.95 kg/m². All participants were administered the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) from which Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report (LPFS-SR) and Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD) scores were gained using the "crosswalk" for common metric for self-reported severity of personality disorder. The k-means clustering method was used to define specific subgroups of patients with obesity and replicated for equality testing to the samples of non-clinical respondents and psychiatric patients. Results: The cluster analysis detected specific groups in the sample of patients with obesity, which differed quantitatively from the samples of non-clinical respondents and psychiatric patients. A vast majority of patients with obesity showed above-average values in most of the PID-5 facets compared to the United States representative general community sample. In two out of the three clusters defined, patients demonstrated moderate (> M + 1.5 × SD) to severe (> M + 2.0 × SD) personality psychopathology within the Detachment and Negative Affectivity domains according to PID-5, which in one of the clusters corresponded to the mild overall impairment in both, LPFS-SR (M = 2.18, SD = 0.27) and SASPD (M = 8.44, SD = 2.38). Moreover, higher levels of psychopathology prove to be associated with higher age and use of psychiatric medication. Conclusions: The dimensional DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models are suitable procedures for defining specific "characters" of patients in a pre-bariatric setting. As such, they help to identify subgroups of patients with obesity who are different from general population and psychiatric patients. Implications for clinical practice and further research are discussed.

Self-reported narcissistic traits in patients with addiction through the lens of the ICD-11 model for personality disorders

BACKGROUND

There is a presumption that pathological narcissism, or narcissistic personality disorder per se, can be considered a precursor to addiction. Although the ICD-11 model does not distinguish specific personality disorders, narcissistic psychopathology should be captured through personality trait qualifiers.

OBJECTIVES

To verify the capacity of the ICD-11 model in the detection of narcissistic psychopathology in patients with addiction; to test its discrimination capacity, convergent validity, and specificity toward the gender and the type of addiction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two samples were employed in the study. Sample 1 (n = 421) consisted of patients with addiction; Sample 2 (n = 567) consisted of general population volunteers. Age range was 18-75 years and a battery of self-assessment questionnaires containing Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form Plus Modified; Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale; and Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report was administered by pencil-and-paper method.

RESULTS

The following was confirmed: (1) capacity of the ICD-11 model in relation to capture narcissistic pathology; (2) the differentiation capacity between the clinical and non-clinical population; (3) gender specificity in relation to grandiose and vulnerable narcissism; (4) the connection between the overall degree of impairment in personality functioning and most of trait qualifiers; (5) certain specifics of patients with addiction in relation to the type of addiction.

CONCLUSION

Results support the empirical and clinical relevance of the ICD-11 model in capturing narcissistic pathology in addicted patients. Clinical implications concerning assessment and treatment in addiction settings, and certain limits regarding the Anankastia domain are discussed.

Development and Validation of a Validity Scale for Use with the UPPS-P and Short UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scales

Two of the most widely used self-report measures of impulsivity are the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale and its shortened version, the SUPPS-P, which currently are limited by their inability to detect careless and/or random responding. The present study develops and cross-validates an inconsistency scale for use with the UPPS-P and SUPPS-P in order to accurately screen for data quality and better detect invalid responding. A total of 443 participants were recruited from Amazon's MTurk online data collection service to serve as the derivation sample and 231 undergraduates were recruited to serve as the cross-validation sample. The inconsistency scale demonstrated good classification accuracy in differentiating between genuine and random protocols and moderated the relationships between the UPPS-P/SUPPS-P and a criterion measure of impulsivity, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11). Thus, the inconsistency scale shows promise as an indicator of variable response inconsistency for use with both the UPPS-P and SUPPS-P in community and undergraduate research samples.

Psychometric Properties of the Independent 36-Item PID5BF+M for ICD-11 in the Czech-Speaking Community Sample

Background: Empirical soundness and international robustness of the PID5BF+M, a shortened version of the PID-5 developed for simultaneous evaluation of maladaptive personality traits in the DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 models for personality disorders, was recently confirmed in 16 samples from different countries. Because the modified PID5BF+ scale (36 items) was extracted from the complete 220-item PID-5, an independent evaluation of psychometric properties of a stand-alone PID5BF+M is still missing. Objectives: The present study evaluated the validity and reliability of the 36-item PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. It also assessed associations between the Borderline Pattern qualifier and trait domain qualifiers. Methods: Two non-clinical samples meeting the inclusion criteria were employed in the study. Sample 1 (n = 614) completed the 220-item PID-5; Sample 2 (n = 1,040) completed the independent 36-item PID5BF+M. Participants were from all 14 regions of the Czech Republic. The Borderline Pattern qualifier was evaluated using a shortened IPDEQ screener. Results: The proposed latent structure of the independent PID5BF+M was confirmed, with an exception of the Disinhibition domain. The results confirmed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the measure, as well as some support for the measurement invariance of the independent PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. Significant associations between the Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism qualifiers and the IPDEQ items for the emotionally unstable personality disorder of both impulsive and borderline types confirmed good predictive validity of the PID5BF+M in pursuing borderline psychopathology within the ICD-11 model. Conclusions: The independent PID5BF+M was found to be a valid and reliable tool for evaluation of the ICD-11 trait model. However, the Disinhibition domain deserves further investigation in clinical samples as well as in international community samples.

International Assessment of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Traits: Toward a Common Nosology in DSM-5.1

INTRODUCTION

The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders (PD) are largely commensurate and, when combined, they delineate 6 trait domains: negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, disinhibition, anankastia, and psychoticism.

OBJECTIVE

The present study evaluated the international validity of a brief 36-item patient-report measure that portrays all 6 domains simultaneously including 18 primary subfacets.

METHODS

We developed and employed a modified version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 - Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+). A total of 16,327 individuals were included, 2,347 of whom were patients. The expected 6-factor structure of facets was initially investigated in samples from Denmark (n = 584), Germany (n = 1,271), and the USA (n = 605) and subsequently replicated in both patient- and community samples from Italy, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, the USA, and Brazil. Associations with interview-rated DSM-5 PD categories were also investigated.

RESULTS

Findings generally supported the empirical soundness and international robustness of the 6 domains including meaningful associations with familiar interview-rated PD types.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified PID5BF+ may be employed internationally by clinicians and researchers for brief and reliable assessment of the 6 combined DSM-5 and ICD-11 domains, including 18 primary subfacets. This 6-domain framework may inform a future nosology for DSM-5.1 that is more reasonably aligned with the authoritative ICD-11 codes than the current DSM-5 AMPD model. The 36-item modified PID5BF+ scoring key is provided in online supplementary Appendix A see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000507589 (for all online suppl. material).