Moving beyond categories and dimensions in personality pathology assessment and diagnosis

Narcissistic dimensions and depressive symptoms in patients across mental disorders in cognitive behavioural therapy and in psychoanalytic interactional therapy in Germany: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Narcissistic personality traits have been theorised to negatively affect depressive symptoms, therapeutic alliance, and treatment outcome, even in the absence of narcissistic personality disorder. We aimed to examine how the dimensional narcissistic facets of admiration and rivalry affect depressive symptoms across treatment modalities in two transdiagnostic samples.

METHODS

We did a naturalistic, observational prospective cohort study in two independent adult samples in Germany: one sample pooled from an inpatient psychiatric clinic and an outpatient treatment service offering cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT), and one sample from an inpatient clinic providing psychoanalytic interactional therapy (PIT). Inpatients treated with CBT had an affective or psychotic disorder. For the other two sites, data from all service users were collected. We examined the effect of core narcissism and its facets admiration and rivalry, measured by Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire-short version, on depressive symptoms, measured by Beck's Depression Inventory and Patient Health Questionnaire-Depression Scale, at baseline and after treatment in patients treated with CBT and PIT. Primary analyses were regression models, predicting baseline and post-treatment depression severity from core narcissism and its facets. Mediation analysis was done in the outpatient CBT group for the effect of the therapeutic alliance on the association between narcissism and depression severity after treatment.

FINDINGS

The sample included 2371 patients (1423 [60·0%] female and 948 [40·0%] male; mean age 33·13 years [SD 13·19; range 18-81), with 517 inpatients and 1052 outpatients in the CBT group, and 802 inpatients in the PIT group. Ethnicity data were not collected. Mean treatment duration was 300 days (SD 319) for CBT and 67 days (SD 26) for PIT. Core narcissism did not predict depression severity before treatment in either group, but narcissistic rivalry was associated with higher depressive symptom load at baseline (β 2·47 [95% CI 1·78 to 3·12] for CBT and 1·05 [0·54 to 1·55] for PIT) and narcissistic admiration showed the opposite effect (-2·02 [-2·62 to -1·41] for CBT and -0·64 [-1·11 to -0·17] for PIT). Poorer treatment response was predicted by core narcissism (β 0·79 [0·10 to 1·47]) and narcissistic rivalry (0·89 [0·19 to 1·58]) in CBT, whereas admiration showed no effect. No effect of narcissism on treatment outcome was discernible in PIT. Therapeutic alliance mediated the effect of narcissism on post-treatment depression severity in the outpatient CBT sample.

INTERPRETATION

As narcissism affects depression severity before and after treatment with CBT across psychiatric disorders, even in the absence of narcissistic personality disorder, the inclusion of dimensional assessments of narcissism should be considered in future research and clinical routines. The relevance of the therapeutic alliance and therapeutic strategy could be used to guide treatment approaches.

FUNDING

IZKF Münster.

TRANSLATION

For the German translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

What is a psychopathology dimension?

Coherence in the science and practice of mental health assessment depends upon a tight connection between psychopathology concepts that are used and the way those concepts are operationalized and defined. In contrast, the use of the same word to mean more than one thing contributes to incoherence, inefficiency, and confusion. In this paper, we review three possible meanings of the word "dimension" as it relates to the assessment of psychopathology and describe how the indiscriminate use of this word has caused confusion in the general context of the transition to a more evidence-based approach to mental health diagnosis. We attempt to disambiguate the term "dimension" by demarcating three concepts that can be distinguished based on different empirical standards: continuous variables, unidimensional dimensions, and distinct dimensions.

In search of hidden threats: A scoping review on paranoid presentations in personality disorders

Recent diagnostic developments suggest that paranoia is a transdiagnostic characteristic common to several personality disorders rather than a personality disorder per se. Nonetheless, empirical literature fails to provide comprehensive and univocal findings on whether and how paranoid presentations relate to different personality disorders. In the present scoping review, we map the empirical literature on paranoid presentations in personality disorders, considering the entire spectrum of paranoid manifestations (i.e., the paranoia hierarchy). In selecting original quantitative studies on paranoid presentations in personality-disordered patients, we screened 4,433 records in PsycArticles, PsycInfo and PUBMED. We eventually included 47 eligible studies in the review. Our synthesis indicates consistent empirical evidence of a wide range of paranoid presentations in Paranoid, Schizotypal and Borderline personality disorders. Conversely, little empirical literature exists on paranoid presentations in other personality disorders. Preliminary findings suggest broad-severity paranoid presentations, ranging from milder to severe forms, in Paranoid, Schizotypal and Borderline personality disorders. There is also some evidence of milder forms of paranoia in Avoidant, Antisocial and Narcissistic personality disorders. Conversely, there is poor evidence of paranoid presentations in Schizoid, Histrionic, Dependent or Obsessive-compulsive personality disorders. Research gaps and recommendations for improving empirical research on paranoid presentations in personality disorders are discussed.

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.

Dimensional models of personality disorders: Challenges and opportunities

Categorical models of personality disorders have been beneficial throughout psychiatric history, providing a mechanism for organizing and communicating research and treatment. However, the view that individuals with personality disorders are qualitatively distinct from the general population is no longer tenable. This perspective has amassed steady criticism, ranging from inconsequential to irreconcilable. In response, stronger evidence has been accumulated in support of a dimensional perspective that unifies normal and pathological personality on underlying trait continua. Contemporary nosology has largely shifted toward this dimensional perspective, yet broader adoption within public lexicon and routine clinical practice appears slow. This review focuses on challenges and the related opportunities of moving toward dimensional models in personality disorder research and practice. First, we highlight the need for ongoing development of a broader array of measurement methods, ideally facilitating multimethod assessments that reduce biases associated with any single methodology. These efforts should also include measurement across both poles of each trait, intensive longitudinal studies, and more deeply considering social desirability. Second, wider communication and training in dimensional approaches is needed for individuals working in mental health. This will require clear demonstrations of incremental treatment efficacy and structured public health rebates. Third, we should embrace cultural and geographic diversity, and investigate how unifying humanity may reduce the stigma and shame currently generated by arbitrarily labeling an individual's personality as normal or abnormal. This review aims to organize ongoing research efforts toward broader and routine usage of dimensional perspectives within research and clinical spaces.

Why is an evidence-based classification of personality disorder so elusive?

Despite recent revisions, the classification of personality disorder remains a matter of dispute, and there is little evidence of consistent progress toward an evidence-based system. This essay examines four issues impeding taxonomic progress and explores how they might be addressed. First, the phenomenological and aetiological complexity of personality disorder poses a formidable challenge to traditional taxonomic methods. Second, current classifications incorporate assumptions such as a stringent version of medical model and an essentialist philosophy that are inconsistent with empirical evidence. Third, despite the claims of trait psychology, a viable alternative to categorical diagnosis is not available. Contemporary trait models have not gained widespread clinical acceptance and substantial conceptual and methodological limitations compromise their clinical value. Finally, the processes used to revise official classifications are biased toward conservative revisions and difficult to shield from non-scientific influences. It is suggested that rather making further attempts to develop a general monolithic classification that meets all needs, consideration be given to developing a more flexible and multifaceted framework that combines diagnosis and assessment. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Scripting the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders assessment procedure: A clinically feasible multi-informant multi-method approach

Published case studies on the DSM-5 (section III) Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) generally utilized unstandardized assessment procedures or mono-method approaches. We present a case from clinical practice to illustrate a standardized, clinically feasible procedure for assessing personality pathology according to the full AMPD model, using a multi-method approach. We aim to present a procedure that can guide and inspire clinicians that are going to work with dimensional models as presented in DSM-5 and ICD-11. Specifically, we show how questionnaire and interview data from multiple sources (i.e. patient and family) can be combined. The clinical case also illustrates how Criterion A (i.e. functioning) and B (i.e. traits) are interrelated, suggesting that the joint assessment of both Criterion A and B is necessary for a comprehensive and clinically relevant case formulation. It also highlights how multi-method information can enhance diagnostic formulations. Finally, we show how the AMPD model can serve treatment planning and provide suggestions for how patient feedback might be delivered. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Personality Disorders in the ICD-11: Opportunities and Challenges for Advancing the Diagnosis of Personality Pathology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The International Classification of Diseases-11th edition (ICD-11) is poised to make a dramatic change in the diagnosis of personality disorders by introducing a fully dimensionalized framework. In this paper, the history of this process is reviewed, along with international efforts taken to address some underlying concerns with this transition. Recent studies of this framework are also reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have concluded that the ICD-11 proposal is supported; however, there are a number of methodological limitations to these studies, including the utilization of measures that are not directly derived from the ICD-11 description of levels of personality severity and trait domains. There is a clear need for additional studies with measures that directly reflect the ICD-11 description of personality disorders. While there are some potentially positive effects of moving toward the dimensional model, there are a number of concerns remaining about the clinical utility of moving in this way.

An Overview of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Authoritative classification systems for psychopathology such as the DSM and ICD are shifting toward more dimensional approaches in the field of personality disorders (PDs). In this paper, we provide a brief overview of the dimensionally oriented DSM-5 alternative model of PDs (AMPD). Since its publication in 2013, the AMPD has inspired a substantial number of studies, underlining its generative influence on the field. Generally speaking, this literature illustrates both the reliability and validity of the constructs delineated in the AMPD. The literature also illustrates empirical challenges to the conceptual clarity of the AMPD, such as evidence of substantial correlations between indices of personality functioning (criterion A in the AMPD) and maladaptive personality traits (criterion B in the AMPD). Key future directions pertain to linking the AMPD literature with applied efforts to improve the lives of persons who suffer from PDs, and surmounting challenges germane to the evolution of the DSM itself.

How can transference-focused psychotherapy (TFP) help general psychiatrists working with patients with borderline personality disorder?

Transference-focused psychotherapy concepts and techniques have much to offer experienced psychiatrists and psychiatrists in training in their work with patients with borderline personality disorder and, as a consequence, help address the stigmatisation of this group of patients and improve their clinical care.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

W.B.-J. is chair of the Specialty Advisory Committee of the Faculty of Medical Psychotherapy, RCPsych, with governance for the content and delivery of the curriculum for psychotherapy training of trainee psychiatrists in the UK.

Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders

BACKGROUND

The ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders focuses on core personality dysfunction, while allowing the practitioner to classify three levels of severity (Mild Personality Disorder, Moderate Personality Disorder, and Severe Personality Disorder) and the option of specifying one or more prominent trait domain qualifiers (Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Disinhibition, Dissociality, and Anankastia). Additionally, the practitioner is also allowed to specify a Borderline Pattern qualifier. This article presents how the ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification may be applied in clinical practice using five brief cases.

CASE PRESENTATION

(1) a 29-year-old woman with Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity, Disinhibition, and Dissociality; (2) a 36-year-old man with Mild Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Detachment; (3) a 26-year-old man with Severe Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Detachment; (4) a 19-year-old woman with Personality Difficulty, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Anankastia; (5) a 53-year-old man with Moderate Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Anankastia and Dissociality.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification was applicable to five clinical cases, which were classified according to Personaity Disorder severity and trait domain qualifiers. We propose that the classification of severity may help inform clinical prognosis and intensity of treatment, whereas the coding of trait qualifiers may help inform the focus and style of treatment. Empirical investigation of such important aspects of clinical utility are warranted.