The clinical utility of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders and related traits: A preliminary scoping review

Narcissistic personality disorder in the ICD-11: Severity and trait profiles of grandiosity and vulnerability

Modern diagnostic and classification frameworks such as the ICD-11 and DSM-5-AMPD have adopted a dimensional approach to diagnosing personality disorder using a dual "severity" and "trait" model. As narcissistic personality has historically struggled to be adequately captured in dominant diagnostic systems, this study investigated the utility of the new ICD-11 framework in capturing diverse narcissistic expressions. Participants were mental health clinicians (N = 180, 67% female, age = 38.9), who completed ratings of ICD-11 personality severity, trait domains and a clinical reflection for two hypothetical case vignettes reflecting either prototypical "grandiose" or "vulnerable" narcissism. The majority of clinicians (82%) endorsed a diagnosis of personality disorder for both grandiose and vulnerable vignettes. Discriminant elements of personality impairment included rigid, unrealistically positive self-view, low empathy and high conflict with others for grandiosity, and incoherent identity, low self-esteem and hypervigilant, avoidant relations with others for vulnerability. Regarding trait profile, grandiose narcissism was predominately dissocial whereas vulnerable narcissism was primarily associated with negative affectivity and detachment. Qualitative responses highlight distinct clinical themes for each presentation. These findings suggest that clinicians using the ICD-11 framework are able to identify common core elements of personality dysfunction in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism while also recognizing their distinctive differences.

Internal consistency of measures for ICD-11 personality disorder severity and traits: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A number of measures and scales have been developed for the ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) diagnosis, including severity and trait dimensions. The present systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the internal consistency of these measures across different populations and cultures. A systematic search was conducted across four databases where relevant studies were subjected to explicit eligibility criteria resulting in 49 included studies and 370 effect sizes. Study characteristics were tabulated, their methodological quality was evaluated, and findings were synthesized using random effects meta-analysis. Findings overall indicated that measures of ICD-11 PD severity and trait domains have adequate levels of internal consistency (α/ω = 0.82, 95% CI [0.81; 0.83], I2 = 97.3%). Aspects such as sample, country, language, format, and measured construct were significant sources of variation. Additional meta-analyses revealed that some measures performed better than others for certain dimensions. Internal consistency was overall supported across ICD-11 measures of severity and trait domains. Future research should further investigate the interrater reliability, test-retest reliability and stability, and alignment with interview-based PD diagnoses.

The sensitivity of the ICD-11 trait model to the symptoms of clinical disorders in young adults

Hierarchical psychopathology contributes to providing a broader picture of the links between emerging personality structures such as the DSM-5/ICD-11 trait models and clinical disorders. The present study aimed to predict the specific and general clinical symptoms by the less studied constructs of the ICD-11 model (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia). Data from 642 young adults from Iran (63% female, 18-34 years) were collected by three mental symptom scales and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), which was recently used to harmonize the constructs of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models. Multiple linear regressions showed that the ICD-11 model significantly predicted both the specific clinical symptoms (ranging from R2 = 0.15 to 0.40) and the general factor of clinical symptoms extracted by exploratory factor analysis (R2 = 0.40, all p < 0.001). Negative affectivity was the strongest construct correlated with both the specific symptoms (ranging from β = 0.36 to 0.69) and the general symptom factor (β = 0.59, all p < 0.001). Because the ICD-11 trait model is a practical structure related to the clinical psychopathology in young adults, screening for maladaptive traits can help clinicians in case formulation for diagnosis and treatment.

Establishing Levels of Personality Functioning Using the Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO-R): a Latent Profile Analysis

Both the new ICD-11 and the latest Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders focus on self and interpersonal functioning as the central feature of personality pathology, also acknowledging that personality disorders are organized along a dimensional continuum of severity. This revised understanding is in line with long-standing psychodynamic conceptualisations of personality pathology, in particular Kernberg's object relations model of personality organization. Despite existing evidence for the clinical utility of the derived Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO-R), empirical support for the identification of clear cut-points between the different levels of personality functioning is missing. For this purpose, a total of 764 adult participants were recruited across two clinical (outpatient and inpatient) settings (n = 250) and two non-clinical (university students and general community) samples (n = 514). Results from the mixture modeling suggested the existence of five groups across the clinical and non-clinical samples that covered: healthy personality functioning, maladaptive personality rigidity, and mild, moderate, and severe levels of personality pathology. All five indicators of personality organization were found to be reliable predictors of personality pathology. Of the five STIPO-R indicators, Aggression and Moral Values had the most discriminative power for differentiating between the Mild, Moderate, and Severe personality disorder groups. Implications of these findings are discussed.

A Case Report of Primary Derealization Disorder: Diagnostic and Treatment Challenges in a Pakistani Healthcare Setting

Depersonalization and derealization symptoms are often transient. Recurrent and persistent symptoms can result in a diagnosis of depersonalization/derealization disorder (DDD). Here, we reported a case of a 24-year-old adult male whose presentation was consistent with primary derealization disorder only. He was referred with his consent by an ophthalmologist and neurologist for psychiatric opinion for the complaints of blackish discoloration of his vision for the last two years and feeling of unreality towards his surroundings for the last one and a half years in the absence of any comorbid physical illness and mental disorder. The patient was treated with fluoxetine, Lamotrigine, and psychotherapy, but there was only some improvement reported in his distress; however, primary complaints remained unchanged.

Can personality disorder be accurately assessed in older age? A differential item functioning analysis of ICD-11 inventories

OBJECTIVES

The contested categorical personality disorder (PD) criteria are not well suited to inform PD diagnoses in older adults. Yet, the classification of PDs is undergoing a critical transition phase with a paradigm shift to a dimensional approach for diagnosing PDs. No special attention was given to the expression of PDs in older age when the dimensional ICD-11 model was developed. Given that PDs are highly prevalent in older adults, there is an urgent need to examine if ICD-11 related instruments are able to adequately assess for PDs in older adults.

METHODS

The age-neutrality of ICD-11 measures was examined in a sample of 208 Dutch community-dwelling adults (N = 208, M age = 54.96, SD = 21.65), matched on sex into 104 younger (age range 18-64) and 104 older (age range 65-93) adults. An instrument is considered not to be age-neutral if a collective large level of differential item functioning (DIF) exists in a group of items of an instrument (i.e., 25% or more with DIF). We therefore set out to detect possible DIF in the following ICD-11 self-report measures: the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD), the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), and the Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS).

RESULTS

DIF analyses using a non-parametric odds ratio approach demonstrated that SASPD, PiCD, and BPS were age-neutral with less than 25% of items showing DIF. Yet, impact of DIF at scale level, examined by way of differential test functioning (DTF), indicated a DTF effect on the SASPD total score.

CONCLUSIONS

These results of age-neutrality of the PiCD and BPS are promising for measuring ICD-11 traits and the borderline pattern. Yet, the age-neutral measurement of PD severity requires further research. With a rapidly aging population, its accurate assessment across the entire adult life span, including older age, is a prerequisite for an adequate detection of PDs.

ICD-11 personality disorder features in the danish general population: Cut-offs and prevalence rates for severity levels

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence rates and correlates of personality disorders (PD) are relevant to health care policy and planning.

OBJECTIVES

To present normative data for self-reported ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) features including tentative cut-off scores and prevalence rates for severity levels along with psychosocial correlates.

METHODS

The Personality Disorder Severity ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) scale and criterion measures of impairment were administered to a social-demographically stratified sample of Danish citizens (N = 8,941) of which 3,044 delivered complete data. Item-Response Theory (IRT) was employed to indicate cut-offs based on standard deviations from the latent mean.

RESULTS

The unidimensionality of the PDS-ICD-11 score was supported and IRT analysis suggested norm-based thresholds at latent severity levels. Expected associations with criterion measures were found.

CONCLUSION

The normative data portray ICD-11 PD features in the general population and allow for interpretation of PDS-ICD-11 scores (e.g., scores of 12, 16, and 19 may indicate mild, moderate, and severe dysfunction), which may inform health care policy and planning. A total weighted prevalence of 6.9 % of the Danish general population is estimated to have clinically significant personality dysfunction, proportionally composed of Mild (4.8 %), Moderate (1.2 %), and Severe (0.9 %) levels. Future research should corroborate these findings using relevant clinical samples and methods.

New Zealand (Aotearoa) clinicians' perspectives on the utility of the ICD-11 personality disorder diagnosis

The ICD-11 has now taken effect and includes a new dimensional personality disorder (PD) diagnosis. The current study aimed to examine Aotearoa/New Zealand practitioners' perceptions of the clinical utility of the new PD system. A sample of 124 psychologists and psychiatrists completed a survey, applying the DSM-5 and ICD-11 PD diagnostic systems to a current patient, and completed clinical utility metrics on the DSM-5 and ICD-11 models. Additional open-ended questions further elicited clinicians' perceptions of the strengths, weaknesses and potential application issues of the ICD-11 PD diagnosis, and these responses were analysed through thematic analysis. Overall, the ICD-11 system was rated higher than the DSM-5 on all six clinical metrics, with no significant difference between psychologists' and psychiatrists' ratings. Five themes emerged: appreciation for an alternative to DSM-5, structural barriers preventing ICD-11 PD implementation, personal barriers to ICD-11 implementation, diagnoses viewed as low utility, clinician preference for formulation and cultural safety considerations for implementation of ICD-11 PD in Aotearoa/NZ. Overall, clinicians had positive opinions of the clinical utility of the ICD-11 PD diagnosis, although expressed some concerns about its implementation. The study expands upon initial evidence that mental health practitioners have generally positive perceptions of the ICD-11 PDs' clinical utility.

Connecting DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait domains with schema therapy and dialectical behavior therapy constructs

The DSM-5 Section III alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD) and the International Classification of Diseases - 11th Edition's (ICD-11) personality disorder classification allow clinicians to identify individual trait domains in which people score highly. However, how these domains relate to constructs associated with efficacious treatment approaches is unclear. The current study aimed to determine whether constructs from two evidence-based treatments (schema therapy [ST] and dialectical behavior therapy [DBT]) were associated with maladaptive personality traits in a way consistent with underlying theories. We examined associations between ST constructs, DBT skill use and maladaptive coping styles, and personality traits in a sample of 525 adults. Bivariate intercorrelations and a series of multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate the associations. As hypothesized, maladaptive coping was strongly associated with all trait domains. Surprisingly, poor DBT-skill use was only associated with negative affectivity, detachment, and disinhibition trait domains. Specific schema domains were associated with each personality trait domain, supporting trait domain-schema domain specificity. The current study highlights the potential clinical utility of the AMPD and ICD-11 trait models and ultimately contributes to the dearth of evidence on their likely usefulness for treatment selection, planning, and applications.

A Consumer Perspective on Personality Diagnostic Systems: One Size Does Not Fit All

Although providers and patients may largely agree on what is essential to clinically useful assessment and diagnosis, patients have a unique voice and contribute additional information to our conceptualization of clinical utility. The current study evaluated the clinical utility of three diagnostic models (Section II categorial, Section III hybrid, and the original ICD-11 dimensional) from the consumer/user perspective. Participants included 703 undergraduate students and 154 family members or individuals with borderline personality disorder. Participants rated mock diagnostic reports on six indices of clinical utility. Results indicated that undergraduates favored categorical reports over the original ICD-11 dimensional reports on three of six indices but rated categorical and hybrid reports as essentially equivalent. In the patient/family sample, participants favored the hybrid or categorical model on all indices. Our findings speak to the value of a clear diagnostic label and suggest that future iterations of the DSM adopting a hybrid or dimensional model should have a continued focus on simplicity in communication.

A Bridge Between DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorder Criteria and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Trait Domains

The organization of personality pathology into trait domains (vs. specific disorders) in ICD-11 represents an important shift in personality disorder (PD) nosology. However, to facilitate clinical implementation, a bridge is needed between this system and the DSM-5 Section II system familiar to many researchers and clinicians. In this study, individual DSM-5 PD criteria were assigned to ICD-11 trait domains based on the published Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements. This scoring scheme was examined empirically alongside DSM-5 PD dimensions (using SIDP ratings from the MIDAS project; N = 2,147 outpatients) in terms of descriptive properties and relations with psychosocial morbidity and functioning. Most PD criteria could be matched to at least one ICD-11 trait domain, indicating considerable cross-system continuity. However, points of incongruity are noteworthy for research and clinical applications. Results provide key information for bridging categorical and dimensional frameworks, indicating that the shift toward trait-based PD models need not be as disruptive as feared.

Diagnostic accuracy of severity measures of ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality disorder: clarifying the clinical landscape with the most up-to-date evidence

With the implementation of new dimensional models of personality disorder (PD) in the DSM-5 and ICD-11, several investigators have developed and evaluated the psychometric properties of measures of severity. The diagnostic accuracy of these measures, an important cross-cultural metric that falls between validity and clinical utility, remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze and synthesize the diagnostic performance of the measures designed for both models. For this purpose, searches were carried out using three databases: Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Studies that presented sensitivity and specificity parameters for cut-off points were selected. There were no restrictions on the age and gender of the participants nor on the reference standard used or the settings. Study quality and synthesis were assessed using QUADAS-2 and MetaDTA software, respectively. Twelve studies were eligible covering self-reported and clinician-rated measures based on the ICD-11 and DSM-5 PD severity models. A total of 66.7% of the studies showed a risk of bias in more than 2 domains. The 10th and 12th studies provided additional metrics, resulting in a total of 21 studies for evidence synthesis. Adequate overall sensitivity and specificity (Se = 0.84, Sp = 0.69) of these measures were obtained; however, the cross-cultural performance of specific cut-off points could not be assessed due to the paucity of studies on the same measure. Evidence suggests that patient selection processes should mainly be improved (avoid case-control design), use adequate reference standards, and avoid only reporting metrics for the optimal cut-off point.

Clinical Implications of ICD-11 for Diagnosing and Treating Personality Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The International Classification of Diseases 11th revision (ICD-11) introduced a new approach to personality disorders and related traits. This paper reviews recent literature on the assessment of ICD-11 personality disorders and implications for clinical diagnosis, decision-making, and treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

We reviewed findings on two measures developed for the ICD-11 model of personality dysfunction and six inventories for the ICD-11 trait specifiers. The psychometric qualities of these tools are promising, and they allow for both rapid screening and fine-grained assessment. Implications for clinical diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders are reviewed including utility for forensic practice. Based on evidence and our experience, we provide some recommendations for severity- and trait-informed interventions. Initial evidence supports the available instruments for assessing ICD-11 personality disorders. More research is needed including development of clinician-rating forms and diagnostic interviews as well as treatment protocols and trials based on the new ICD-11 classification.

The ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: a European perspective on challenges and opportunities

The 11th revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes a fundamentally new approach to Personality Disorders (PD). ICD-11 is expected to be implemented first in European countries before other WHO member states. The present paper provides an overview of this new ICD-11 model including PD severity classification, trait domain specifiers, and the additional borderline pattern specifier. We discuss the perceived challenges and opportunities of using the ICD-11 approach with particular focus on its continuity and discontinuity with familiar PD categories such as avoidant PD and narcissistic PD. The advent of the ICD-11 PD classification involves major changes for health care workers, researchers, administrators, and service providers as well as patients and families involved. The anticipated challenges and opportunities are put forward in terms of specific unanswered questions. It is our hope that these questions will stimulate further research and discussion among researchers and clinicians in the coming years.