The Incremental Utility of Criteria A and B of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders for Predicting DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorders

Competing Models of Personality Disorder: Relations With Psychosocial Functioning

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), includes 10 categorical personality disorders (PD) in Section II (Section II PD) and a dimensional alternative model of PD (AMPD) in Section III. We compared the two models in explaining concurrent psychosocial functioning levels in psychiatric outpatients and community residents screened as at risk for PD pathology (N = 600). The AMPD's fully dimensional form showed stronger associations with psychosocial difficulties and explained more of their variance compared with the categorical Section II PD. AMPD Criterion A (personality functioning impairment) and Criterion B (pathological traits) incrementally predicted psychosocial functioning about equally with some unique predictions. Finally, AMPD's six categorical PD diagnoses did not show stronger associations with psychosocial functioning than the corresponding Section II PD diagnoses. Findings directly comparing the two models remain important and timely for informing future conceptualizations of PD in the diagnostic system.

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.

Contribution of the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders to relationship satisfaction

Introduction

Personality is a central factor associated with relationship discord, conflicts, and separation, as well as with dyadic adjustment and relationship stability. The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) of the DSM-5 offers a hybrid model for understanding personality based on personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and pathological domains and facets (Criterion B). So far, few studies have integrated this model into the understanding of relationship quality. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the contribution of Criterion B to relationship satisfaction in individuals involved in an intimate relationship. We also explored the joint contribution of Criteria A and B, as well as their interaction effects, to relationship satisfaction.

Methods

Participants were drawn from two clinical samples: patients with personality disorders (PD; N = 101) and clients consulting in private practice clinics (PPC; N = 350). They completed self-report questionnaires assessing relationship satisfaction and AMPD Criteria A (only for PPC sample) and B.

Results

Hierarchical regressions showed that, for the PD sample, the Detachment and Negative Affectivity domains, especially the pathological facets of Intimacy Avoidance and Separation Insecurity, explained 22.5% of relationship satisfaction's variance. For PPC clients, Detachment, Negative Affectivity, and Antagonism domains, and especially the pathological facets of Intimacy Avoidance, Anxiousness, and Grandiosity, contribute significantly to relationship satisfaction, explaining 14.8% of its variance. Criterion A elements did not evince incremental value to the regression models in the PPC sample, and no Criteria A and B interaction effects were found. Clinical implications as well as limitations of the study are discussed.

Differentiation of Self and Interpersonal Functioning with the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0

Research on Criterion A of the alternative model for personality disorders is recently expanding and provides mixed results concerning the unidimensional operational definition of severity by the model, characterized by impaired self (identity and self-direction) and interpersonal (empathy and intimacy) functioning. Studies resulted in one, as well as two or more factor structures. The present study demonstrated the importance of the structural and relational differentiation of self and interpersonal dimensions of personality functioning. One thousand seventy-four participants (community and clinical mixed sample) completed the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form and the Questionnaire for the World Health Organization Disability Assessment. An LPFS-BF 2.0 two-factor structure with self and interpersonal functioning factors was corroborated by confirmatory factor analyses and bifactor modeling. Joint Exploratory Factor Analysis of the LPFS-BF 2.0 domains with maladaptive personality domains clearly differentiated the personality functioning factors. While the self-functioning factor was more closely linked to negative affect (and to disinhibition and psychoticism), the interpersonal functioning factor connected to detachment. Self-functioning predicted functional impairment along and beyond personality domains. The LPFS-BF 2.0 appears a useful tool for clinical routine monitoring of both self and interpersonal functioning.

Improvement of personality functioning among people treated within personality disorder mental health services. A longitudinal, observational study

Objective

Evidence-based personality disorder (PD) treatments are dominated by interventions targeting Borderline PD, although clinical populations characteristically include different PD features and severity. Personality functioning is a new concept intended to capture common features across PDs. This study aimed to investigate longitudinal improvement of personality functioning in a clinical sample assigned to PD treatment.

Method

An observational, large, longitudinal study of patients in PD treatments on specialist mental health service levels (N = 1,051). DSM-5 PDs were systematically assessed on referral. Personality functioning was repeatedly assessed (LPFS-BF-2.0), supplemented by symptom distress (anxiety: PHQ-GAD-7, depression: PHQ-9), and social/occupational activity (WSAS, work/study activity). Statistics were linear mixed models.

Results

Thirty per cent had personality difficulties below PD threshold. Among PDs, 31% had Borderline (BPD), 39% Avoidant (AvPD), 15% not otherwise specified, 15% other PDs, and 24% > one PD. More severe initial LPFS-BF was associated with younger age, presence of PD and increasing number of total PD criteria. Across PD conditions, LPFS-BF, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 improved significantly (overall effect size 0.9). Mean duration of PD treatment was 15 (SD 9) months. Drop-out rates were low (12%). LPFS-BF improvement-rates were higher for BPD. Younger age was moderately associated with slower PHQ-9 improvement. Work/study activity was initially poor, poorer levels associated with AvPD and younger age, and improvement was non-significant across PD conditions. AvPD was associated with slower WSAS improvement-rates.

Conclusion

Personality functioning improved across PD conditions. The results highlight BPD improvements. The study points to challenges concerning AvPD treatment, poor occupational activity and age-related differences.

Bridging the ICD11 and the DSM-5 personality disorders classification systems: The role of the PID5BF + M

Introduction

In both the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) personality disorders (PD) are characterized by impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning which distinguish the various levels of dysfunction. Moreover, pathological traits are used by these classification systems to define the stylistic expression of personality dysfunction. Negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition feature as trait domains in each of these models. However, there are also differences between the two models, namely, in the psychoticism domain, which does not feature as a personality trait domain in the ICD-11, and in the anankastia domain, corresponding to compulsivity in the DSM-5, which was removed from the final AMPD model. Furthermore, facets are acknowledged by the DSM-5 within each trait domain, while this does not occur in the ICD-11. In view of the similarity between these classification systems, their harmonization would be beneficial for the clinical profession. With this goal in mind, the PID5BF + M, an algorithm that assesses the DSM-5 and ICD-11 six trait domains and 18 facets, was developed and has proven to adequately characterize the ICD-11 trait domains by means of DSM-5 trait facets.

Methods

The current study compares a community sample (N = 280, M age = 48.01, 53.2% females) with a PD sample (N = 131, M age = 42.66, 45.0% females) along with the PID5BF + M, the LPFS-SR and the PID-5. Given that the PID5BF + M total can be seen as a measure of the level of personality dysfunction, strong relations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total are expected. Strong relations between the trait specifiers measured by the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 are also expected. Finally, the community and clinical samples are expected to differentiate by means of the dimensions assessed through the three afore-mentioned measures. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of associations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total and between the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 traits. Group differences were explored using the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples.

Results

As expected, there were strong, significant, and positive relations between the measures. Furthermore, higher scores were observed in all the variables for the PD group against the community group.

Discussion

Although this study has limitations, its findings sustain that the PID5BF + M has potential to assess the severity of personality disfunction and to characterize the stylistic features of PD as they are conceived by both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Although more research is needed regarding the convergent validity of the PID5BF + M, this new test contributes to the harmonization of both systems and to parsimony in the assessment of PD, which is the main objective of clinical practice.

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.