Personality disorders and the DSM-5: Scientific and extra-scientific factors in the maintenance of the status quo

Comparative Examination of ICD-11 and DSM-5 Alternative Model in Personality Disorders

Personality disorders tried to be explained by changing diagnoses and approaches varying from school to school throughout history. With the updated approaches and scientific developments in today's diagnostic booklets, developing and more understandable diagnostic categories for personality disorders are created. New models can be an important resource for diagnosis, treatment and common language among clinicians. Both ICD-11 and DSM-5 main part section III. have highlighted new models beyond the previous personality disorders diagnostic approach. In both models, personality disorders are examined according to severity levels and prominent personality features model. Moreover, personality disorder includes structures that take into account the course of basic personality traits such as self, identity and bilateral relations. While DSM-5 part III. Alternative model on personality disorders section has a content of 5 prominent features, 25 sub-features and functionality which are all for evaluating the disorder, the ICD-11 model includes an approach that includes five features and borderline pattern and definitions, and a 4-dimensional structure in which functionality is evaluated. Although both models include models of features that stand out in personality but not completely overlap with each other. For example, while Psychoticism finds its place as a personality trait in alternative model in section III of DSM-5, as it is not accepted in personality feature in ICD-11. In contrast, the borderline pattern is not named as a feature in DSM-5 in section III, but the ICD-11 treats the borderline pattern as a kind of feature. This is one of the important differences between the two guidelines. Similarly, the criteria by which functionality and impairment are evaluated are not compatible with each other and do not progress in parallel. This means that two different guidelines accept different severity levels as thresholds. However, it can be said that both models accept the personality disorders approach, which includes longitudinal processes in which personality traits can be seen instead of categorical models. The differences between the new models can be interpreted as an obstacle to the development of a common language in terms of diagnosis and treatment.

ICD-11 Personality Disorders: Utility and Implications of the New Model

The ICD-11 classification of personality disorders represents a paradigm shift in diagnosis. This was felt necessary because previous personality disorder classifications had major problems. These included unnecessary complexity, inconsistency with data on normal personality traits, and minimal consideration of severity despite this being shown to be the major predictor of outcome. The ICD-11 classification abolishes all categories of personality disorder except for a general description of personality disorder. This diagnosis can be further specified as "mild," "moderate," or "severe." Patient behavior can be described using one or more of five personality trait domains; negative affectivity, dissociality, anankastia, detachment, and disinhibition. Clinicians may also specify a borderline pattern qualifier. The ICD-11 shows considerable alignment with the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. Early evidence around the reliability and validity of the new model appear promising, although at present there is still limited specific evidence due to the model being so recently finalized. However, for the model to be successful, it needs to be embraced by clinicians and used widely in normal clinical practice.

Conceptualizations of Mental Disorder at a US Academic Medical Center

How health care professionals conceptualize mental illness has received relatively little attention in existing literature. This survey explored how health care professionals, academic faculty, and trainees at a US academic medical center (departments of psychiatry, neurology, family medicine, and geriatric medicine, as well as medical students, nurses, and social workers) conceptualize the notion of mental disorder. Respondents (N = 209) were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with a variety of conceptual statements. Overall, distress and impairment were seen as essential features of mental disorder, and the presence of a biological abnormality was not considered necessary. There was significant correlation between disease status and biological etiology attribution for all conditions except homosexuality. Psychology trainees and psychologists were significantly less likely to call a condition a disease compared with other groups. There was a general lack of consensus regarding conceptual issues fundamental to psychiatry. Conceptualizations of mental disorder held by respondents were complex and did not fit easily within the "biological psychiatry" paradigm.

Categorical and Dimensional Conceptions of Personality Pathology in DSM-5: Toward a Model-Based Synthesis

Symptom-based models, typically operationalized through diagnostic interview, and trait models, typically operationalized via questionnaire inventories, reflect historically competing conceptions of personality disorder (PD). DSM-5 includes models of both types, in Sections II and III, respectively. In this study, we sought to synthesize these alternative conceptualizations by fitting bifactor models to data for both Section II PD symptoms (assessed using the SCID-II interview protocol) and dimensional traits for the six PDs retained in Section III (assessed using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5). Bifactor models fit the data effectively for all six PDs, and trait and symptom indicators both loaded appreciably on general factors reflecting cross-domain PD constructs. These results provide the basis for a principled, quantitative synthesis of categorical/interview and dimensional/self-report approaches to operationalizing and studying PDs, with considerable implications for diagnosis, research, and practice.

Either or? Reconciling Findings on Mental Health and Extremism using a Dimensional Rather than Categorical Paradigm

The background for this paper is the debate over what role mental illness plays in radicalization to violent extremism. While one camp points to cases of abnormal functioning of perpetrators, another argues that normal psychological mechanisms are central. Through a review of these perspectives, it becomes clear that mental illness cannot be ruled out as an epi-phenomenon, but is not a necessary condition either. The paper draws on work in psychiatric nosology on dimensional and categorical conceptions of illness and argues that the perspectives in this literature reflect a categorical approach to normal and abnormal functioning. Under a dimensional perspective, findings converge. The paper concludes by showing how this new dimensional approach to the role of mental illness in radicalization has implications for the design of risk assessment tools and leads to the recommendation for stronger inter-agency cooperation between mental health professionals, social services, and police and intelligence services.

Diagnosis and classification of personality disorders: novel approaches

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update of the recent studies, which have evaluated the radical changes in personality disorder classification in DSM-5 and ICD-11.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the DSM-5 Committee rejected the personality disorders Work Group proposal for personality disorder classification, the model was published in DSM-5 Section III. This Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) has been widely adopted by the research community resulting in multiple studies evaluating its reliability and clinical utility. The ICD-11 Personality Classification has recently been accepted by the WHO and is also receiving increasing study. Both models emphasize personality disorder severity, which most studies report is consistently linked to impairment and outcome. Both models propose five descriptive domains, which appear to capture most of the current personality disorder diagnoses, and can also be linked to disease extremes of normal personality such as the Five Factor Model.

SUMMARY

The changes in DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 represent a significant paradigm shift in the diagnosis of personality disorders. Early research suggests that the changes may be beneficial for clinicians and researchers. The models more closely align with the large body of literature supporting dimensional models of normal personality. The severity dimensions are consistent with the large body of evidence that personality disorder severity is a strong determinant of impairment and outcome. It remains to be seen if clinicians will use the classification to plan and predict treatment for a wide range of mental disorders.

ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality trait domains capture categorical personality disorders: Finding a common ground

OBJECTIVE

The five personality disorder trait domains in the proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition are comparable in terms of Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism/Dissociality and Disinhibition. However, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model includes a separate domain of Anankastia, whereas the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition model includes an additional domain of Psychoticism. This study examined associations of International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition trait domains, simultaneously, with categorical personality disorders.

METHOD

Psychiatric outpatients ( N = 226) were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Interview and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition trait domain scores were obtained using pertinent scoring algorithms for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Associations between categorical personality disorders and trait domains were examined using correlation and multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

Both the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition domain models showed relevant continuity with categorical personality disorders and captured a substantial amount of their information. As expected, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model was superior in capturing obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, whereas the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition model was superior in capturing schizotypal personality disorder.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary findings suggest that little information is 'lost' in a transition to trait domain models and potentially adds to narrowing the gap between Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition and the proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition model. Accordingly, the International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition domain models may be used to delineate one another as well as features of familiar categorical personality disorder types. A preliminary category-to-domain 'cross walk' is provided in the article.

Relationships between self-reported childhood traumatic experiences, attachment style, neuroticism and features of borderline personality disorders in patients with mood disorders

BACKGROUND

Co-occurring borderline personality disorder (BPD) features have a marked impact on treatment of patients with mood disorders. Overall, high neuroticism, childhood traumatic experiences (TEs) and insecure attachment are plausible aetiological factors for BPD. However, their relationship with BPD features specifically among patients with mood disorders remains unclear. We investigated these relationships among unipolar and bipolar mood disorder patients.

METHODS

As part of the Helsinki University Psychiatric Consortium study, the McLean Screening Instrument (MSI), the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R), the Short Five (S5) and the Trauma and Distress Scale (TADS) were filled in by patients with mood disorders (n=282) in psychiatric care. Correlation coefficients between total scores of scales and their dimensions were estimated, and multivariate regression (MRA) and mediation analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Spearman's correlations were strong (rho=0.58; p<0.001) between total scores of MSI and S5 Neuroticism and moderate (rho=0.42; p<0.001) between MSI and TADS as well as between MSI and ECR-R Attachment Anxiety. In MRA, young age, S5 Neuroticism and TADS predicted scores of MSI (p<0.001). ECR-R Attachment Anxiety mediated 33% (CI=17-53%) of the relationships between TADS and MSI.

LIMITATIONS

Cross-sectional questionnaire study.

CONCLUSIONS

We found moderately strong correlations between self-reported BPD features and concurrent high neuroticism, reported childhood traumatic experiences and Attachment Anxiety also among patients with mood disorders. Independent predictors for BPD features include young age, frequency of childhood traumatic experiences and high neuroticism. Insecure attachment may partially mediate the relationship between childhood traumatic experiences and borderline features among mood disorder patients.