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.

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) includes two main criteria: moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and the presence of one or more pathological personality traits (Criterion B). The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental utility of Criteria A and B for predicting DSM-5 Section II personality disorders (PD). The sample (N = 317) consisted of three well-defined groups: non-clinical participants (n = 35), psychiatric patients with PD (n = 193), and without PD (n = 83). All were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I): Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Logistic regression analyses showed that the SCID-5-AMPD-I could predict the presence of PDs in general, and the three specific PDs that were investigated (i.e., Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs). The PID-5 domains enhanced prediction of the specific PDs, but not the presence of PDs in general, when entered in the second step. Our results support the AMPD model: Criterion A predicted the presence of DSM-5 Section II PDs in general, whereas measures of Criterion B incremented prediction of Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs.

Introduction to the Special Series on the Personality Functioning Component of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD; American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ) was created to remedy the previously well-explicated limitations of the categorical DSM-IV personality disorders. The AMPD combines dimensional assessments of personality functioning (Criterion A) and traits (Criterion B), which can be used independently or together, and serve as the basis for defining six categorical disorder options. The Criterion A Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) defines a continuum characterized by the four elements of identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. Empirical work related to the LPFS has been growing, and this Journal of Personality Assessment special series features reports from a variety of research groups around the world. These studies provide contributions for better understanding the reliability, validity, and utility of the LPFS, as well as describing new measures that have been created to investigate personality functioning.

Interrater Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module i: Level of Personality Functioning Scale.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) presents an alternative model for personality disorders in which severity of personality pathology is evaluated by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The Structured Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, Module I (SCID-5-AMPD I) is a new tool for LPFS assessment, but its interrater reliability (IRR) has not yet been tested. Here we examined the reliability of the Norwegian translation of the SCID-5-AMPD I, applying two different designs: IRR assessment based on ratings of 17 video-recorded SCID-5-AMPD I interviews by five raters; and test-retest IRR based on interviews of 33 patients administered by two different raters within a short interval. For the video-based investigation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged from .77 to .94 for subdomains, .89 to .95 for domains, and .96 for total LPFS. For the test-retest investigation, ICC ranged from .24 to .72 for subdomains, .59 to .90 for domains, and .75 for total LPFS. The test-retest study revealed questionable reliability estimates for some subdomains. However, overall the level of personality functioning was measured with a sufficient degree of IRR when assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD I.

Assessing DSM-5 level of personality functioning from videotaped clinical interviews: a pilot study with untrained and clinically inexperienced students.

Several authors have raised the concern that the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) is relatively complex and theory laden, and thus might put high requirements on raters. We addressed this concern by having 22 untrained and clinically inexperienced students assess the personality functioning of 10 female psychotherapy inpatients from videotaped clinical interviews, using a multi-item version of the LPFS. Individual raters' LPFS total scores showed acceptable interrater reliability, and were significantly associated with 2 distinct expert-rated measures of the severity of personality pathology. These findings suggest that, contrary to the previously mentioned concerns, successfully applying the LPFS to clinical cases might require neither extensive clinical experience nor training.

Validating the proposed diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition, severity indicator for personality disorder.

The authors sought to determine whether a 5-point global rating of personality dysfunction on the Level of Personality Functioning Scale proposed as a severity index for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), would be related to DSM-IV personality disorder diagnosis as well as to other key clinical judgments. Data were collected from a national sample of 337 mental health clinicians who provided complete diagnostic information relevant to DSM-IV and proposed DSM-5 personality disorder diagnoses, as well as demographic information and other clinical judgments, on one of their patients. Of the 337 patients described, 248 met criteria for 1 of the 10 specific DSM-IV personality disorders. A "moderate" or greater rating of impairment in personality functioning on the Level Scale demonstrated 84.6% sensitivity and 72.7% specificity for identifying patients meeting criteria for a specific DSM-IV personality disorder. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale had significant and substantial validity correlations with other measures of personality pathology and with clinical judgments regarding functioning, risk, prognosis, and optimal treatment intensity. Furthermore, the single-item Level of Personality Functioning rating was viewed as being as clinically useful as the 10 DSM-IV categories for treatment planning and patient description and was a better predictor of clinician ratings of broad psychosocial functioning than were the 10 DSM-IV categories combined. These results confirm hypotheses that the single-item Level of Personality Functioning Scale rating provides an indication of severity of personality pathology that predicts both assignment of personality disorder diagnosis and clinician appraisals of functioning, risk, prognosis, and needed treatment intensity.

Mirror, mirror on the wall: reflecting on narcissism.

This article introduces a special issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session focused on the conceptualization and treatment of narcissism. Obscured by an ongoing debate about how best to define pathological narcissism, clinicians have often lost sight of the fact that narcissistic investment in the self is a normal developmental trend that can be disturbed to varying degrees by environmental stresses and failures of nurturing. Using case presentations, contributing authors demonstrate the following: the importance of understanding the closely interrelated grandiosity and vulnerability associated with narcissistic difficulties; variation in the expression of narcissistic "types"; the role of perfectionism and sadomasochism; and the possibility that narcissistic issues are present across all types of personality psychopathology. Specific alliance-building recommendations are offered, and the greater utility of defining narcissism dimensionally rather than categorically is explored. A clinical case in the current article illustrates each of these central ideas. Together, the discussions presented in this issue invite greater insight into, and appreciation of, narcissistic phenomena, along with examples of effective and empathic treatment approaches.

Criterion A: Level of personality functioning in the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders.

Criterion A, as represented by Level of Personality Functioning (LPF), offers a means by which to conceptualize the core impairment in self and interpersonal functioning that distinguishes personality disorder (PD) from other forms of psychopathology. One of the most widely cited criticisms of the current Section II in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition categorical diagnostic system is the high level of comorbidity among the categorical PD diagnoses. The Section III alternative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition model for PDs (AMPD) addresses this problem by assessing the commonalities of the PDs using a single severity continuum, represented in the AMPD by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), which comprises both self and interpersonal pathology. Since its initial introduction, the LPFS has generated an expansive literature base and has also seen significant advancements in its measurement, including both semistructured and self-report methods. Such studies have generally demonstrated that the LPFS can be rated reliably, across both experienced and inexperienced raters, and demonstrates strong validity as evidenced by associations with relevant criterion variables and demonstrations of predictive and clinical utility. This review offers a brief history of the conceptualization and development of Criterion A and the LPFS, describes the major advancements in its measurement, and provides a summary of the status of the empirical literature regarding Criterion A's structure, reliability, and validity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part I: a review of theory and methods.

Personality disorders are associated with fundamental disturbances of self and interpersonal relations, problems that vary in severity within and across disorders. This review surveyed clinician-rated measures of personality psychopathology that focus on self-other dimensions to explore the feasibility and utility of constructing a scale of severity of impairment in personality functioning for DSM-5. Robust elements of the instruments were considered in creating a continuum of personality functioning based on aspects of identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. Building on preliminary findings (Morey et al., 2011 /this issue), the proposed Levels of Personality Functioning will be subjected to extensive empirical testing in the DSM-5 field trials and elsewhere. The resulting version of this severity measure is expected to have clinical utility in identifying personality psychopathology, planning treatment, building the therapeutic alliance, and studying treatment course and outcome.

Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part II: empirical articulation of a core dimension of personality pathology.

The extensive comorbidity among Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994 ) personality disorders might be compelling evidence of essential commonalities among these disorders reflective of a general level of personality functioning that in itself is highly relevant to clinical decision making. This study sought to identify key markers of such a level, thought to reflect a core dimension of personality pathology involving impairments in the capacities of self and interpersonal functioning, and to empirically articulate a continuum of severity of these problems for DSM-5. Using measures of hypothesized core dimensions of personality pathology, a description of a continuum of severity of personality pathology was developed. Potential markers at various levels of severity of personality pathology were identified using item response theory (IRT) in 2 samples of psychiatric patients. IRT-based estimates of participants' standings on a latent dimension of personality pathology were significantly related to the diagnosis of DSM-IV personality disorder, as well as to personality disorder comorbidity. Further analyses indicated that this continuum could be used to capture the distribution of pathology severity across the range of DSM-IV personality disorders. The identification of a continuum of personality pathology consisting of impairments in self and interpersonal functioning provides an empirical foundation for a "levels of personality functioning" rating proposed as part of a DSM-5 personality disorder diagnostic formulation.

Level of personality functioning as a predictor of psychosocial functioning-Concurrent validity of criterion A.

The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), defines personality functioning by assessment of impairment in Identity and Self-direction (Self component) and in Empathy and Intimacy (Interpersonal). These four domains constitute the Level of Personality Functioning Scale, a trans-diagnostic measure of PD severity. The association between the Level of Personality Functioning Scale and psychosocial impairment based on other previously established psychosocial functioning instruments has not been reported. A total of 317 individuals, including a representative clinical sample of 282 patients (192 with a personality disorder [PD] diagnosis), was evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 AMPD Module I. Self-reported impairment was measured by the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), and social and occupational impairment was assessed by the functioning score of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF-F). WSAS and GAF-F both correlated significantly with mean LPFS scores and the sum of DSM-IV PD criteria. For both measures, the mean LPFS was a stronger predictor for psychosocial impairment than the sum of DSM-IV PD criteria. Within the LPFS, the Self component was a better predictor than the Interpersonal component for both WSAS and GAF-F. For the four domains, the results diverged, with Identity as the strongest predictor by far for WSAS. Empathy was the only significant predictor for impairment evaluated by GAF-F, but its contribution to variance was not substantial. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Evaluation of Diagnostic Thresholds for Criterion A in the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) was formulated to assess the presence and severity of personality disorders (PDs). Moderate impairment (Level 2) in personality functioning, as measured by the LPFS, was incorporated into the AMPD as a diagnostic threshold for PD in Criterion A of the general criteria, as well as for the "any two areas present" rule for assigning a specific PD diagnosis. This study represents the first evaluation of the diagnostic decision rules for Criterion A, in a clinical sample (N = 282). The results indicate that an overall diagnostic threshold for PDs should be used with caution because it may not identify all DSM-IV PDs. The "any two areas present" rule proved to be a reasonable alternative, although this finding should be interpreted with caution because the LPFS does not measure the disorder-specific A criteria.

Borderline personality disorder diagnosis in a new key.

BACKGROUND: Conceptualizations of personality disorders (PD) are increasingly moving towards dimensional approaches. The definition and assessment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in regard to changes in nosology are of great importance to theory and practice as well as consumers. We studied empirical connections between the traditional DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BPD and Criteria A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). METHOD: Raters of varied professional backgrounds possessing substantial knowledge of PDs (N = 20) characterized BPD criteria with the four domains of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and 25 pathological personality trait facets. Mean AMPD values of each BPD criterion were used to support a nosological cross-walk of the individual BPD criteria and study various combinations of BPD criteria in their AMPD translation. The grand mean AMPD profile generated from the experts was compared to published BPD prototypes that used AMPD trait ratings and the DSM-5-III hybrid categorical-dimensional algorithm for BPD. Divergent comparisons with DSM-5-III algorithms for other PDs and other published PD prototypes were also examined. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability analyses showed generally robust agreement. The AMPD profile for BPD criteria rated by individual BPD criteria was not isomorphic with whole-person ratings of BPD, although they were highly correlated. Various AMPD profiles for BPD were generated from theoretically relevant but differing configurations of BPD criteria. These AMPD profiles were highly correlated and showed meaningful divergence from non-BPD DSM-5-III algorithms and other PD prototypes. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that traditional DSM BPD diagnosis reflects a common core of PD severity, largely composed of LPFS and the pathological traits of anxiousness, depressively, emotional lability, and impulsivity. Results confirm the traditional DSM criterion-based BPD diagnosis can be reliably cross-walked with the full AMPD scheme, and both approaches share substantial construct overlap. This relative equivalence suggests the vast clinical and research literatures associated with BPD may be brought forward with DSM-5-III diagnosis of BPD.

Ethnicity and mental health treatment utilization by patients with personality disorders.

The authors examined the relationship between ethnicity and treatment utilization by individuals with personality disorders (PDs). Lifetime and prospectively determined rates and amounts of mental health treatments received were compared in over 500 White, African American, and Hispanic participants with PDs in a naturalistic longitudinal study. Minority, especially Hispanic, participants were significantly less likely than White participants to receive a range of outpatient and inpatient psychosocial treatments and psychotropic medications. This pattern was especially pronounced for minority participants with more severe PDs. A positive support alliance factor significantly predicted the amount of individual psychotherapy used by African American and Hispanic but not White participants, underscoring the importance of special attention to the treatment relationship with minority patients. These treatment use differences raise complex questions about treatment assessment and delivery, cultural biases of the current diagnostic system, and possible variation in PD manifestation across racial/ethnic groups. Future studies need to assess specific barriers to adequate and appropriate treatments for minority individuals with PDs.

Borderline personality as a self-other representational disturbance.

A great deal has been written about the nature of borderline personality. We maintain that borderline psychopathology emanates from particular disturbances in mental representations-impairment in the ability to maintain and use benign and integrated internal images of self and others-and that these troubled ways of thinking drive the troubled interpersonal relations, affective instability, and impulsivity associated with borderline. Aspects of borderline self-other representational disturbances are present across a wide theoretical spectrum, and a number of research methodologies already exist to assess the phenomena. We conclude that borderline attributes exist on continua, and summarize important features as: (1) unstable mental images of self and others, often marked by self-loathing and attributions of malevolence to others; (2) interactions with others organized around a fundamental need for care that is felt to be necessary for basic functioning; (3) fear of others based on expectations of being mistreated and disappointed and/or terror of having one's identity subsumed by another person; (4) difficulty considering multiple and/or conflicting perspectives, with a tendency toward concrete, all-or-none, or black-and-white, thinking and distortion of reality; and (5) sadomasochistic interpersonal interactions in which a person alternatively inflicts suffering on others and suffers at the hands of others.

Personality and life events in a personality disorder sample.

Individuals with a personality disorder (PD) tend to experience more negative life events (NLEs) than positive life events (PLEs). In community samples, the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM) predicts both positive and negative life events. The present research examined whether FFM normal personality traits were associated with positive and negative life events among individuals with 1 of 4 PDs: avoidant, borderline, schizotypal, and obsessive-compulsive, and tested whether associations between the FFM of personality and PLEs and NLEs were similar across the 4 PD groups and a control group. Among aggregated PDs, neuroticism was positively associated with NLEs, whereas extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness were positively associated with PLEs. Comparisons of each PD group to a control group of individuals with a major depressive disorder indicated that the FFM traits operated similarly across clinical samples with and without PD. Our findings indicate that normal personality traits can be used to help understand the lives of individuals with PD. (PsycINFO Database Record

Predictors of 2-year outcome for patients with borderline personality disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this report was to investigate whether characteristics of subjects with borderline personality disorder observed at baseline can predict variations in outcome at the 2-year follow-up. METHOD: Hypothesized predictor variables were selected from prior studies. The patients (N=160) were recruited from the four clinical sites of the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders; the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders, a modified version of that instrument; the Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation; and the Childhood Experiences Questionnaire-Revised. Univariate Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated on the primary predictor variables, and with two forward stepwise regression models, outcome was assessed with global functioning and number of borderline personality disorder criteria. RESULTS: The authors' most significant results confirm prior findings that more severe baseline psychopathology (i.e., higher levels of borderline personality disorder criteria and functional disability) and a history of childhood trauma predict a poor outcome. A new finding suggests that the quality of current relationships of patients with borderline personality disorder have prognostic significance. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians can estimate 2-year prognosis for patients with borderline personality disorder by evaluating level of severity of psychopathology, childhood trauma, and current relationships.

Prospective assessment of treatment use by patients with personality disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the utilization of mental health treatments over a three-year period among patients with schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, or obsessive-compulsive personality disorders compared with patients with major depressive disorder and no personality disorder. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study design was used to measure treatment use for 633 individuals aged 18 to 45 years during a three-year period. RESULTS: Patients with borderline personality disorder were significantly more likely than those with major depressive disorder to use most types of treatment. Furthermore, all patients continued using high-intensity, low-duration treatments throughout the study period, whereas individual psychotherapy attendance declined significantly after one year. CONCLUSIONS: Although our data showed that patients with borderline personality disorder used more mental health services than those with major depressive disorder, many questions remain about the adequacy of the treatment received by all patients with personality disorders.

Dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders: relationships to functional impairment.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared three-dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders and standard categories with respect to their associations with psychosocial functioning. METHOD: Six hundred sixty-eight patients with semistructured interview diagnoses of schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, or obsessive-compulsive personality disorders or with major depressive disorder and no personality disorder completed questionnaires assessing three-factor and five-factor dimensional models of personality. Personality disorder categories, dimensional representations of the categories based on criteria counts, and three- and five-factor personality dimensions were compared on their relationships to impairment in seven domains of functioning, as measured by the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation-Baseline Version. RESULTS: Both the categorical and dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders had stronger relationships to impairment in functioning in the domains of employment, social relationships with parents and friends, and global social adjustment and to DSM-IV axis V ratings than the three- and five-factor models. DSM-IV dimensions predicted functional impairment best of the four approaches. Although five-factor personality traits captured variance in functional impairment not predicted by DSM-IV personality disorder dimensions, the DSM-IV dimensions accounted for significantly more variance than the measures of personality. CONCLUSIONS: Scores on dimensions of general personality functioning do not appear to be as strongly associated with functional impairment as the psychopathology of DSM personality disorder. A compromise in the ongoing debate over categories versus dimensions of personality disorder might be the dimensional rating of the criteria that comprise traditional categories.