Understanding the association between normal and maladaptive personality traits: Replication and extension of Morey et al. (2020).

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) within the DSM-5 includes separable components representing general personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and maladaptive personality traits (Criterion B). Some critique Criterion A for accounting for little incremental variance in PD beyond Criterion B. However, Morey et al. (2020) hypothesized that personality dysfunction is a key mechanism through which normal-range traits account for the maladaptive component of personality traits, justifying its inclusion. We sought to replicate and extend this work in a psychiatric sample with mixed methods. METHOD: In total, 152 participants recruited from mental health clinics completed multiple measures of personality dysfunction and normal-range and maladaptive traits. RESULTS: Replication was only partially achieved. The degree of incremental prediction of maladaptive traits and the extent to which personality dysfunction explained the relations between normal-range and maladaptive traits varied significantly across traits, and those effects that reached significance were small in magnitude. Removing variance due to personality dysfunction reduced intercorrelations among maladaptive traits by only a small amount. CONCLUSION: Counter to Morey et al. (2020), our results failed to support maladaptive traits as composites of normal-range traits and personality dysfunction, suggesting that other methods of distinguishing personality pathology severity and style are needed.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorders and the alternative model: Prediction of naturalistically observed behavior, interpersonal functioning, and psychiatric symptoms, 1 year later.

Traditional personality disorders (PDs; e.g., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition [DSM-5] Section II PDs), as well as dimensional traits (e.g., alternative model for PD [AMPD]), offer unique advantages in personality pathology assessment. However, very little is known about how these systems compare in predicting observable behavior. This study compares self-report ratings of PD symptoms (i.e., Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV PD) with self-reports of AMPD traits (i.e., Personality Inventory for DSM-5) in predicting clinical outcomes, 1 year later, via three different methods: (a) naturalistically observed psychosocial functioning (i.e., electronically activated recorder [EAR]), (b) informant-reported interpersonal functioning (i.e., Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32), and (c) self-reported suicidality (SI), depression, anxiety, and substance use symptoms (i.e., Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire). Data were analyzed from 72 individuals in current or recent psychiatric treatment meeting diagnosis for at least one PD. Results showed that DSM Section II PD and AMPD ratings yielded meaningful and comparable predictions of naturalistically observed EAR variables and informant-rated interpersonal functioning. The AMPD appeared to offer slight advantages in the prediction of EAR-observed negative affect, hostile words, and informant-rated interpersonal functioning, with clearer advantages at the facet level. Overall, these results provide tentative evidence that both DSM Section II PD and AMPD systems show meaningful links with clinical outcomes measured via multiple methods 1 year later, but with clearer advantages for the AMPD at the facet level. Moreover, results show that the EAR is a viable method for capturing naturalistically observed clinically meaningful, in vivo behavior of individuals exhibiting maladaptive personality patterns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).