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.

Scorn Not Its Simplicity: Examining the Effectiveness of Simple Generalist Treatment for Personality Disorders.

Treatment guidelines for personality disorders have typically recommended specialized psychotherapeutic interventions. In this review, the author suggests that an intervention's effectiveness may be determined less by the specific method than by therapist competence, team culture, clinical process structure, and institutional context. The author argues that these elements determine variance in effectiveness between and within methods. Whereas initial studies of a specialized treatment may reflect the exceptional competencies of the treatment's developers and early adopters, in daily clinical practice, therapists with an average level of skill may struggle with the theoretical and methodological complexities of these treatments, which can hinder genuine connection with patients. This interference may particularly affect treatment outcomes when therapists encounter the intense emotions and interpersonal hypersensitivity experienced by patients with personality disorders. Most therapists would benefit from a set of simple generalist principles that determine the context for their work and offer a framework for dealing with clinical challenges while enabling them to be true to themselves and use their previously learned competencies. The Guideline-Informed Treatment for Personality Disorders is an enhanced common-factors approach that summarizes the core principles of effective treatment and can be feasibly implemented by most therapists.

The development and psychometric evaluation of the Questionnaire Epistemic Trust (QET): A self-report assessment of epistemic trust.

Epistemic trust (ET) refers to the predisposition to trust information as authentic, trustworthy and relevant to the self. Epistemic distrust - resulting from early adversity - may interfere with openness to social learning within the therapeutic encounter, reducing the ability to benefit from treatment. The self-report Questionnaire Epistemic Trust (QET) is a newly developed instrument that aims to assess ET. This study presents the first results on the psychometric properties of the QET in both a community and a clinical sample. Our findings indicate that the QET is composed of four meaningful subscales with good to excellent internal consistency. The QET shows relevant associations with related constructs like personality functioning, symptom distress and quality of life. QET scores clearly distinguish between a clinical and community sample and are associated with the quality of the therapeutic alliance. The QET provides a promising, brief and user-friendly instrument that could be used for a range of clinical and research purposes. Future studies with larger samples are needed to strengthen construct validity and to investigate the value of the QET to predict differential treatment responses or to study mechanisms of change.

Defining the Concept and Clinical Features of Epistemic Trust: A Delphi study.

ABSTRACT: Early identification of "patients at risk" for not completing regular treatment or not benefitting (sufficiently) from treatment might be among the most cost-effective strategies in mental health care. The recently introduced concept of epistemic trust (ET) may have the potential value to predict patients at risk and therefore act as a marker of treatment outcome. We argue that ET may be the final common pathway through which aversive relational experiences in the past result in interpersonal dysfunctioning, which in turn result in dysfunctional therapeutic relationships, rendering it difficult for patients to trust whatever is offered to learn in therapy. Hence, the concept of ET can play an essential role in personalized medicine, allowing for a more tailored treatment assignment to specific patients' characteristics, which may improve treatment outcomes. In this brief report, we define the clinical features of ET by describing its core domains based on consensus of expert opinion on the concept. The response rate was high, and there was a high level of agreement across experts, demonstrating a strong consensus between experts on the definition and clinical features of ET and mistrust and its significance to the understanding of personality disorders.By means of having a clear definition of the clinical features of ET, we hope to make it accessible for assessment.

A multi-center psychometric evaluation of the Severity Indices of Personality Problems 118 (SIPP-118): Do we really need all those facets?

PURPOSE: The Severity Indices of Personality Problems 118 (SIPP-118) is a self-report questionnaire that aims to measure core components of (mal)adaptive personality functioning that can change over time. In this study, we aimed to assess the facet strength of the 16 facets across three large clinical samples. METHODS: Data from Norwegian and Dutch psychiatric patients were analyzed in this international multi-center study (N1 = 2814, N2 = 4751, N3 = 2217). Bi-factor modeling was used to assess to what degree the SIPP items tap into an overall general factor. The incremental value (distinctiveness) of the facets was studied using proportional reduction in mean squared error (PRMSE) based statistics. RESULTS: The estimated model showed adequate fit. The explained common variance (ECV) attributable to the general factor equaled 50% for all three samples. All but two facets (stable self-image and frustration tolerance) showed sufficient levels of distinctiveness. The findings were observed to be comparable across the three samples. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed that the general factor was relatively weak, and the facets had a clear incremental value.

Client and Clinical Utility of the Assessment of Personality Disorders.

ABSTRACT: Clinical utility and client utility are important desirable properties when developing and evaluating a new classification system for mental disorders. This study reports on four focus groups followed up by a Delphi study among clinicians working with clients with personality disorders (PD) and clients with PD themselves to harness both user groups' perspectives on the utility of PD diagnosis. Our findings show that the client and clinician views of the concept of utility were closely aligned and include aspects of transparency of communication and the ability of an assessment to enhance hope, curiosity, motivation, and insight into a client's personality patterns. Unique to clinicians' appraisal was the ability of an assessment to capture both vulnerabilities and resilience of clients and to give information about the prognosis in treatment. Unique to clients' appraisal was the ability of an assessment to be destigmatizing and collaborative. These findings may serve to expand our definition and measurement of clinical utility, in that collaborative and nonstigmatizing procedures likely promote client acceptability. To capture both aspects, we offer two preliminary questionnaires (i.e., item sets open to further empirical testing) based on the data derived from the Delphi procedure.

[The German Version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF): Latent Structure, Convergent Validity and Norm Values in the General Population]. / Die deutsche Version der Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF): Faktorenstruktur, konvergente Validität und Normwerte in der Allgemeinbevölkerung.

The Alternative DSM-5 Model of Personality Disorders describes the level of personality functioning, defined by impairments in self functioning (self pathology) and problems in interpersonal functioning (interpersonal pathology), as the core feature of all personality disorders. A brief self-report measure to assess the level of personality functioning, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF) comprising 12 items, was developed by a Dutch work group. The present study aimed at a first and comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the German version of the LPFS-BF in a large and representative general population sample (n=2470) as well as a non-clinical sample (n=849), particularly focusing on the factor structure, convergent validity and norm values. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the theoretically assumed and for the original version empirically confirmed two-factor solution was replicated in both samples with acceptable fit. Reliability of the total scale as well as both subscales (defined by the internal consistency) was high in both samples (McDonalds ω ≥0.83). Satisfactory convergent validity was indicated by high correlations of the German version of the LPFS-BF with other measures assessing personality dysfunction (r ≥0.72). The association with current psychological distress was similarly high. In the general population sample, the mean norm value (T50) of the total scale was 15 and T70 was 33. Although psychometric evaluations of the German LPFS-BF in patients with mental disorders, particularly those with personality disorders, have not yet been performed, this measure can be recommended as it provides a quick and user-friendly impression of the severity of personality functioning in the domains of self and interpersonal pathology.

A Life Span Perspective on Borderline Personality Disorder.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an update of a life span perspective on borderline personality disorder (BPD). We address the life span course of BPD, and discuss possible implications for assessment, treatment, and research. RECENT FINDINGS: BPD first manifests itself in adolescence and can be distinguished reliably from normal adolescent development. The course of BPD from adolescence to late life is characterized by a symptomatic switch from affective dysregulation, impulsivity, and suicidality to maladaptive interpersonal functioning and enduring functional impairments, with subsequent remission and relapse. Dimensional models of BPD appear more age neutral and more useful across the entire life span. There is a need for age-specific interventions across the life span. BPD symptoms and impairments tend to wax and wane from adolescence up to old age, and presentation depends on contextual factors. Our understanding of the onset and early course of BPD is growing, but knowledge of BPD in late life is limited. Although the categorical criteria of DSM allow for reliable diagnosis of BPD in adolescence, dimensional models appear both more age neutral, and useful up to late life. To account for the fluctuating expression of BPD, and to guide development and selection of treatment across the life span, a clinical staging model for BPD holds promise.

[Psychometric Evaluation of the German Version of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1)]. / Psychometrische Evaluation der deutschen Version des Semistrukturierten Interviews zur Erfassung der DSM-5 Persönlichkeitsfunktionen (STiP-5.1).

BACKGROUND: The alternative model for personality disorders of the DSM-5 introduced an evidence-based, dimensional concept for the diagnosis of personality disorders. Criterion A, operationalized with the Level of Personality Functioning Scale, differentiates different levels of impairments in personality functioning. The Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) is a valid, reliable, and economic interview for the assessment of Criterion A. However, to date, there is no validated form of the interview in the German language. The aim of this study is the psychometric evaluation of the German version of the STiP-5.1. METHODS: The validity and reliability of the STiP-5.1 was investigated in a sample of healthy adults (n=55) and inpatients diagnosed with a mental disorder (n=55). Construct validity was evaluated by correlations with questionnaires for the assessment of structural impairment (IPO-16, OPD-SQS), and maladaptive personality traits (SCID-II-PQ). Interrater reliability was investigated in a sub-sample of healthy individuals and inpatients (n=50). RESULTS: With regard to validity, high correlations (r=0.68-0.78) between STiP-5.1- ratings and convergent self-report questionnaires were found. The sub-sample showed good interrater reliability (ICC=0.93). Interviews took 38 min. on average. CONCLUSIONS: The German version of the STiP-5.1 provides a valid, reliable and economic interview procedure for the dimensional assessment of personality functioning for research and clinical practice.

Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: Utility in Capturing Personality Problems in Psychiatric Outpatients and Incarcerated Addicts.

This study examined the utility of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) in measuring features corresponding to self-other impairment of personality functioning as defined in the new general diagnostic guidelines for Personality Disorder in DSM-5 Section III and ICD-11. A mixed clinical sample (N = 228) composed of 121 psychiatric outpatients and 107 incarcerated addicts was administered the LPFS-BF 2.0, World Health Organization Wellbeing Index (WHO-5), Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R), Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), and the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI). The LPFS-BF 2.0 yielded two latent components that correspond to an interpretation of self- and interpersonal functioning, and showed relevant associations with severity indexes, well-being, dysfunctional schema modes, and lack of healthy functioning modes. The LPFS-BF 2.0 also demonstrated incremental prediction of reduced healthy adult functioning, fulfillment, and well-being over and above the total PID-5 trait score, although this did not apply to dysregulated anger and overcompensatory coping. Taken together, the LPFS-BF 2.0 is a psychometrically satisfactory instrument that generally captures theoretically expected self-other features of personality dysfunctioning, in particular lack of healthy functioning and fulfillment but to a lesser degree overcompensatory and antagonistic features. Findings warrant replication in different clinical and forensic populations.

Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.

The present study investigated the predictive validity of Criterion A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) compared to the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) model in predicting patient outcomes 1 year after initial assessment, in a hetero-method longitudinal design. A clinical sample of 84 participants were administered both traditional Section II and AMPD interviews by two independent interviewers. One year after assessment, disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) and symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory) were assessed. The Section II PD model did not predict disability (R² = .01) nor symptom severity (R² = .03). The AMPD model, on the other hand, predicted both disability (R² = .23) and symptom severity (R² = .29) 1-year postinitial assessment. Both Criterion A and B were significant predictors, but when jointly combined only Criterion A remained significantly predictive of both disability and symptom severity while Criterion B did not. Criterion A thus appears to capture core vulnerabilities of personality-disordered patients that are related to future functioning and symptom severity. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Comparing the clinical utility of the alternative model for personality disorders to the Section II personality disorder model: A randomized controlled trial.

The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) has been extensively studied over the past decade, but to date there is no direct comparison of the clinical utility of the AMPD model relative to the Section II personality disorder (PD) model in an ecologically valid design. The current study examined the clinical utility of an AMPD-informed assessment procedure and Section II PD assessment procedure as assessed by both patients and clinicians in a randomized controlled trial. A sample of 119 patients were randomly assigned to either an AMPD or a Section II PD assessment procedure. At the end of the assessment, patients filled out questionnaires pertaining to clinical utility, satisfaction, motivation for treatment, and general experience of the assessment. Clinicians who subsequently started treatment with these patients also completed two clinical utility questionnaires. There were no significant differences between the AMPD and Section II PD assessment procedure on patients' reported clinical utility, motivation for treatment, satisfaction, and general experience of the assessment nor were there significant differences between the models on clinician reported clinical utility. Explorative analyses revealed that, for patients, a positive relationship with the assessor was predictive of experienced utility. This study shows no superiority of the AMPD in terms of clinical utility but suggests that the alliance with the assessor is a particularly salient factor in clinical utility. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

First psychometric evaluation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 in adolescents.

Reflecting the recent consensus that challenges in personality functioning often onsets in adolescence, and the move toward dimensional models of personality pathology such as the level of personality functioning (LPF) of the alternative model for personality disorders, it is important to have validated measures that can assess LPF in young people. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) is the briefest measure of LPF and may be particularly well suited for assessing LPF in youth; however, it has yet to be formally validated in youth. Therefore, the current investigation evaluated the psychometric properties of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in adolescents drawn from a community sample of ethnically diverse North American youth (N = 194, age 12-18; 58% female). Factor structure, gender invariance, reliability, convergent validity, incremental validity, and criterion validity were evaluated. Results demonstrated support for the LPFS-BF 2.0's unidimensional factor structure, as well as high internal consistency. Configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance was supported across male and female genders, as well as convergent validity. Relative to the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 Brief Form and Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12-18, the LPFS-BF 2.0 demonstrated additional variance in predicting borderline personality features, and internalizing and externalizing problems. Study findings support the English version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 as a brief and psychometrically sound instrument for assessing LPF in youth and adolescents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The (cost-)effectiveness of early intervention (MBT-early) versus standard protocolized treatment (CBT) for emerging borderline personality disorder in adolescents (the EARLY study): a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical guidelines prioritize the treatment of depression and anxiety in young persons, there is accumulating evidence that the presence of symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with the limited effectiveness of these standard treatments. These findings stress the need for interventions addressing early-stage BPD in young people with presenting symptoms of anxiety and depressive disorders. The aim of this study is to investigate the (cost-)effectiveness of an early intervention programme for BPD (MBT-early) compared to first-choice psychological treatment for depression and anxiety according to Dutch treatment guidelines (CBT), in adolescents with either depression, anxiety, or both, in combination with early-stage BPD. METHODS: This study is a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. A total of 132 adolescents, presenting with either depression, anxiety, or both and significant BPD features will be randomized to either MBT-early or CBT. The severity of BPD, symptoms of depression and anxiety, personality, social and academic functioning, and quality of life will be assessed at baseline, end of treatment, and at 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up, along with medical costs and costs of productivity losses for cost-effectiveness analyses. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an empirical evaluation of the potential surplus value of early intervention in young people for whom treatment oriented at common mental disorders like anxiety and depression may be insufficient given their underlying personality problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL9569. Registered on June 15, 2021.

Towards an informed research agenda for the field of personality disorders by experts with lived and living experience and researchers.

BACKGROUND: We describe a collection of themes for a research agenda for personality disorders that was originally formulated for the ESSPD Borderline Congress in 2022. METHODS: Experts with lived and living experience (EE), researchers and clinicians met virtually, exchanged ideas and discussed research topics for the field of personality disorders. The experts - patients, relatives, significant others - named the topics they thought most relevant for further research in the field. These topics were presented at the ESPPD conference in October 2022. RESULTS: The five top themes were: 1. Prevention, early detection and intervention, 2. Recovery beyond symptom improvement, 3. Involvement of relatives in treatment, 4. Gender dysphoria, and 5. Stigma. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the topics reflect current issues and changes in societal values. Overarching aims of research on these topics are the improvement of social participation and integration in society, better dissemination of research, and better information of the general public and political stakeholders.

Isn't criterion A rather than B the language of psychotherapy?: Comment on Sauer-Zavala et al. (2022).

Comments on the article by S. Sauer-Zavala et al. (see record 2022-23735-001), which presents BPD-Compass as a new intervention for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Sauer-Zavala et al. have written a stimulating article that challenges fixed beliefs about the treatment of personality disorders and offers the first attempt to design a treatment according to the heuristic framework of the alternative model of personality disorders. This article presents several elements of the direction our field is developing to but may have underrated the importance of Criterion A in designing good-quality generic PD treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: Validity and reliability of the Polish adaptation. / Krótka Skala Poziomu Funkcjonowania Osobowosci ­ wersja 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0): Trafnosc i rzetelnosc polskiej adaptacji.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined psychometric properties of the Polish adaptation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) measuring features corresponding to self - and interpersonal impairment of personality functioning as defined in the diagnostic guidelines for Personality Disorder in the DSM-5 Section III. METHODS: The study involved a non-clinical sample of N = 242 adults (52.9% female; Mage = 30.63 years, SDage = 11.81 years). To evaluate the criterion validity, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), Agency-Communion-Inventory (AC-IN), and Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) were administered. RESULTS: The LPFS-BF 2.0 yielded two reliable latent components that correspond to an interpretation of self - and interpersonal functioning and showed relevant associations with a personality disorder severity index, maladaptive personality traits, well-being, and personality constructs of agency and communion. The LPFS-BF 2.0 also demonstrated incremental validity over and above all the PID-5 pathological traits with respect to global well-being as an outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The Polish adaptation of the LPFS-BF 2.0 is a psychometrically and conceptually sound measure to assess features corresponding to self and interpersonal impairment of personality functioning as defined in the DSM-5 Section III. However, findings warrant replication in clinical populations.

The diagnosis that should speak its name: why it is ethically right to diagnose and treat personality disorder during adolescence.

Although national guidelines explicitly state that personality disorder can be diagnosed and treated in young people aged 12 to 18 years (adolescents), most clinicians remain hesitant. This creates a gap between science and practice, which we argue is largely motivated by moral reasons and, therefore, is best challenged by ethical arguments. We provide seven arguments in support of the notion that it is ethically right to diagnose and treat personality disorder when it occurs in adolescents. Central to these arguments is the scientific evidence that features of personality disorder are among the best predictors of a complex cluster of psychopathology leading to impairments in many areas of current and future mental, social and vocational functioning. We argue that intervention during adolescence and young adulthood is not only humane, but also critical for efforts to avert the longstanding psychosocial and health problems that seem refractory to treatment in adults with personality disorder. Moreover, we argue that regular services are often inadequately equipped to meet the needs of young people with personality disorder and that the common 'stepped-care' approach should be replaced by a 'staged-care' approach. Finally, we argue that early detection and intervention might have anti-stigmatizing effects, similar to other areas of healthcare in which stigmatizing labels have changed meaning when the conditions to which they refer have become more amenable to treatment.

Normative data for the LPFS-BF 2.0 derived from the Danish general population and relationship with psychosocial impairment.

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 is a frequently used self-report inventory that may be used to screen for self- and interpersonal dysfunction according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders. Nevertheless, reliable norms and cut-off scores to aid interpretation and clinical decision making are still lacking. The LPFS-BF and relevant impairment measures were administered to a sociodemographically stratisfied sample of 2,002 adults from the general Danish population of whom 713 individuals eventually delivered data for inclusion in the present study. The unidimensionality of the LPFS-BF scores was established using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Item-Response Theory (IRT) analysis indicated satisfactory item functioning for all 12 items and suggested normative observed score thresholds at different latent severity levels. Meaningful associations were found between the LPFS-BF norm-based cut-off scores, quality of life, and social and occupational functioning. This study presented the first normative data for LPFS-BF, which specifically applies to Denmark but likely also other socioeconomically comparable Nordic and Western societies. These results allow for interpretation of LPFS-BF scores and clinical decision-making. Future research should corroborate these findings and compare them to scores obtained in other general population samples.

Psychometric evaluation of the Estonian version of the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1).

BACKGROUND: The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders introduced a dimensional perspective on personality disorders. The model assesses functioning in four domains: Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy, and Intimacy. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) in Estonian. METHOD: The sample consists of 131 participants: 58 from the general population and 73 from a mixed clinical sample that is further divided into a mood and anxiety disorder sample and personality disorder sample. All participants completed the STiP-5.1 interview and the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF 2.0). RESULTS: The Estonian STiP-5.1 interview has good internal consistency (McDonald's ω between .94-.98) and high convergent validity (correlations with LPFS-BF 2.0 above .7). Interview scores successfully differentiated the general population from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen's d = 2.68), as well as patients with personality disorder from those without (Cohen's d = 1.76). The LPFS-BF 2.0 total score differentiates the general population sample from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen's d = 1.99) but not the personality disorder sample from other clinical sample participants. CONCLUSIONS: The properties of the Estonian STiP-5.1 replicate those of other languages, and empirically support a unified personality functioning dimension that can be meaningfully thought of as reflecting impairments in self and interpersonal functioning. Findings of this study will be discussed in the light of the ongoing debate on the dimensionality of personality pathology and the use of self-report versus interview measures for assessing personality pathology.