Examining the Structure and Validity of Self-Report Measures of DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Criterion A

Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the German Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (SIFS)

The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (SIFS) is a 24-item self-report questionnaire assessing personality functioning according to the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. We evaluated the German SIFS version in a total sample of 886 participants from Germany and Switzerland. Its factor structure was investigated with confirmatory factor analysis comparing bifactor models with two specific factors (self- and interpersonal functioning) and four specific factors (identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy). The SIFS sum and domain scores were tested for reliability and convergent validity with self-report questionnaires and interviews for personality functioning, -organization, -traits, -disorder categories, and well-being. None of the bifactor models yielded good model fit, even after excluding two items with low factor loadings and including a method factor for reverse-keyed items. Based on a shortened 22-item SIFS version, models suggested that the g-factor explained 52.9-59.6% of the common variance and that the SIFS sum score measured the g-factor with a reliability of .68-.81. Even though the SIFS sum score showed large test-retest reliability and correlated strongly with well-established self-report questionnaires and interviews, the lack of structural validity appears to be a serious disadvantage of the SIFS compared to existing self-reports questionnaires of personality functioning.

Examining the Validity of the Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire for Adolescents Aged 12-18 (LOPF-Q 12-18): A Replication and Extension With a Sample of Lithuanian Adolescents

With the shift to the dimensional model of personality pathology, the need for measures assessing personality functioning in adolescence has emerged. The Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12-18 (LoPF-Q 12-18) was developed specifically for adolescents, tailoring the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders in the DSM-5. Using the Lithuanian LoPF-Q 1218, we further investigate its validity by reexamining its factorial structure and extending convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity analyses. A total of 1,048 community-based and clinically referred 12-18-year-old adolescents completed the LoPF-Q 12-18 along with other self-report measures of personality pathology, psychopathological symptoms, and psychosocial functioning. In line with previous findings, the results supported the bifactor model consisting of a strong general factor and little multidimensionality caused by the group factors, overall suggesting an essentially unidimensional structure. Further analyses provided additional information on the construct validity of the LoPF-Q 12-18.

The Portuguese version of the self-report form of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS-SR) in a community and clinical sample

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR) operationalizes Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. The current study aimed 1) to examine the internal consistency of the Portuguese version of the LPFS-SR in a community sample and a clinical sample, 2) to compare non-clinical participants (N = 282, Mage = 48.01, SD = 10.87) with two samples of clinical participants, one composed of patients with a personality disorder diagnosis (PD sample, n = 40, Mage = 46.18, SD = 13.59) and the other of patients with other psychiatric diagnoses (OD sample, n = 148, Mage = 49.49, SD = 11.88), with respect to LPFS-SR dimensions and total score, 3) to examine the capacity of the LPFS-SR to discriminate between samples through the ROC curve analyses, and 4) to examine the factor structure of the Portuguese version of the LPFS-SR. The Portuguese version of the LPFS-SR revealed adequate internal consistency results, akin to the original data, in the community and clinical samples. The community sample differed significantly from both clinical samples in all the LPFS-SR dimensions and total score. The ROC curve analysis indicated an optimal cut-off for the total score of 272.00, corresponding to a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 89%, in the PD vs. community samples. The LPFS-SR total score discriminative capacity between the PD and OD samples was lower, albeit also significant (area-under-the-curve of .63; p = .027; 95% CI: .52-.74). The current study provided evidence of the LPFS-SR's unidimensionality in both community and clinical samples. Although this study has limitations, its findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the LPFS-SR construct, as well as to its cross-cultural validation.

First Psychometric Evaluation of the English Version of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning (STiP-5.1)

The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders provides a dimensional framework for the conceptualization of personality disorders where Criterion A concerns the assessment of one's level of personality functioning (LPF). This study examines the psychometric properties of the English translation of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning (STiP-5.1) to validate this translation for the assessment of LPF in English-speaking populations; and examine whether this measure increments self-report measures of LPF and personality pathology in predicting general functioning. The sample consisted of 129 emerging adults between 18 and 25 years of age (M = 20.54, SD = 2.08) from a mixed college and clinical sample. Results support a unidimensional factor structure of the STiP-5.1, good internal consistency, and high inter-rater reliability. Construct validity was supported through associations of the STiP-5.1 with self-report measures of LPF and personality pathology. The STiP-5.1 incremented self-report measures of personality pathology in predicting functional impairment, though additional variance explained was modest. Finally, STiP-5.1 scores differentiated individuals who obtained a score at or above the clinical cutoff from those below on self-report measures of personality pathology and LPF with large effect sizes. Findings support the validity of the English translation of the STiP-5.1 for the assessment of LPF.

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.

The Utility of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale in Maternal Samples: A Brief Report

Maternal personality plays a role in how a mother parents her children and adolescents. Current trait-based measures of personality are acceptable for use in maternal samples, but the presence or absence of given personality traits might not be enough to describe how personality relates to parenting. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) could serve as a solution, as it was designed to capture level of dysfunction in personality without being reliant on specific personality traits. Research, however, has yet to demonstrate the LPFS as a useful measure of personality in maternal samples, thus the goal of this study. A sample of 123 mothers reported on behavioral problems in their adolescent-aged children and their own personality using both a trait-based measure and the LPFS. Our data showed that maternal reports on the LPFS were associated with maternal perceptions of adolescent behavioral problems, in addition to being an acceptable measure of personality in our maternal sample. We also provide support for incremental validity of the LPFS in our sample, as the LPFS uniquely predicted maternal perceptions of adolescent behavioral problems even after controlling for maternal personality traits. Our results are discussed in light of the limitations of the extant work on maternal personality and add to the literature by demonstrating that the LPFS is an acceptable and ubiquitous measure of personality in maternal samples.

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.

Evaluating the Construct Validity of the Norwegian Version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 in a Large Clinical Sample

The Level of Personality Functioning - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) is a 12-item self-report questionnaire developed to gain a quick impression of the severity of personality pathology according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). The current study evaluated the construct validity and reliability of the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in a large clinical sample (N = 1673). Dimensionality was examined using confirmatory factor analysis and bifactor analysis followed by an analysis of distinctiveness of the subscales using the proportional reduction in mean squared error (PRMSE), and the concurrent validity was examined using correlations with self-report questionnaires and clinical interviews assessing PDs according to section II of the DSM-5. Taking the findings of the dimensionality and concurrent validity results together, we found moderate to good support for the use of total scores for the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0. We would advise against the use of subscale scores, since the subscales provided only a small amount of reliable unique variance.

Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12-18 (LoPF-Q 12-18): Factor Structure, Validity, and Clinical Cut-Offs

The Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12-18 (LoPF-Q 12-18) is the only self-report measure informed by the Level of Personality Functioning (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013]) Alternative Model of Personality Disorders developed for adolescents. The present investigation includes two studies evaluating the English LoPF-Q 12-18. In Study 1, single-factor and bifactor structures (unidimensional severity criterion and four specific factors: identity, self-direction, empathy, intimacy) were evaluated in an ethnically diverse community sample (N = 453; age 10-18; 57% female). Study 2 used a community control (n = 298; age 10-18; 54.4% female) and clinical sample (n = 94; age 11-18; 58.5% female) to examine reliability, validity, and clinical utility. Study 1 results supported the bifactor model, with a robust general factor and little multidimensionality caused by the group factors, suggesting an essentially unidimensional structure. Study 2 revealed good internal consistency and construct validity and provided clinical cut-offs, supporting the use of the LoPF-Q 12-18 total score in research and clinical applications.

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.

Trading Patients: Applying the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders to Two Cases of DSM-5 Borderline Personality Disorder Over Time and Across Therapists

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) dimensionally defines personality pathology using severity of dysfunction and maladaptive style. As the empirical literature on the clinical utility of the AMPD grows, there is a need to examine changes in diagnostic profiles and personality expression in treatment over time. Assessing these changes in individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) is complicated by the tendency for patients to cycle through multiple therapists over the course of treatment leaving the potential for muddled diagnostic clarity and disjointed case conceptualizations. Following patient trajectories across therapists offers a unique opportunity to examine the AMPD’s sensitivity to and utility for capturing personality stability and change over time for patients with BPD. This article demonstrates the utility of the AMPD for two clinical cases in three distinct ways: (i) highlighting heterogeneity in BPD between patients, (ii) comparing improvements in personality severity and style over time, and (iii) elucidating profile change across therapist ratings. We present two patients diagnosed with DSM-5 Section II BPD, crossing between two therapists over the course of 3 years of psychodynamic psychotherapy. Treating clinicians rated patients for their respective treatment phases using the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), capturing severity, and the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5), capturing style. AMPD diagnostic profiles differentiated patients with BPD in both severity and style, and captured within-patient change beyond within-therapist response bias. Results indicated greater improvements in personality severity while personality style remained more stable. Implications for the patients’ treatment progress and associated challenges are discussed, as are considerations for the utility of the AMPD in therapy.