Borderline personality disorder symptom networks across adolescent and adult clinical samples: examining symptom centrality and replicability.

BACKGROUND: Numerous theories posit different core features to borderline personality disorder (BPD). Recent advances in network analysis provide a method of examining the relative centrality of BPD symptoms, as well as examine the replicability of findings across samples. Additionally, despite the increase in research supporting the validity of BPD in adolescents, clinicians are reluctant to diagnose BPD in adolescents. Establishing the replicability of the syndrome across adolescents and adults informs clinical practice and research. This study examined the stability of BPD symptom networks and centrality of symptoms across samples varying in age and clinical characteristics. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses of BPD symptoms from semi-structured diagnostic interviews from the Collaborative Longitudinal Study of Personality Disorders (CLPS), the Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Service (MIDAS) study, and an adolescent clinical sample. Network attributes, including edge (partial association) strength and node (symptom) expected influence, were compared. RESULTS: The three networks were largely similar and strongly correlated. Affective instability and identity disturbance emerged as relatively central symptoms across the three samples, and relationship difficulties across adult networks. Differences in network attributes were more evident between networks varying both in age and in BPD symptom severity level. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the relative importance of affective, identity, and relationship symptoms, consistent with several leading theories of BPD. The network structure of BPD symptoms appears generally replicable across multiple large samples including adolescents and adults, providing further support for the validity of the diagnosis across these developmental phases.

Global personality dysfunction and the relationship of pathological and normal trait domains in the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders distinguishes core personality dysfunction common to all personality pathology from maladaptive traits that delineate specific variants of disorder. Previous research shows the convergence between maladaptive and normal range trait domains as well as substantial correlations between maladaptive traits and core dysfunctions, leading some to conclude that personality traits and dysfunction are redundant. This study sought to examine the potential utility of the concept of core dysfunctions as a means of clarifying the nature of the relationship between maladaptive and normal-range traits. METHOD: Three nonclinical samples (n = 178, 307, and 1,008) were evaluated for personality dysfunction, maladaptive traits, and normal-range traits using different measures. RESULTS: Results indicated that: (1) normal trait domains and core dysfunction contribute independently to understanding maladaptive traits; (2) the correlation of a normal trait domain with its putative maladaptive equivalent is consistently accounted for in part by core dysfunction; and (3) the multitrait multimethod matrices of normal and maladaptive personality trait domains demonstrate appreciable discriminant validity problems that are clarified by a consideration of core dysfunction. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that maladaptive traits reflect the distinguishable contributions of core personality dysfunction (problems) and normal-range personality traits (person).

Development and Validation of a Validity Scale for Use with the UPPS-P and Short UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scales.

Two of the most widely used self-report measures of impulsivity are the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale and its shortened version, the SUPPS-P, which currently are limited by their inability to detect careless and/or random responding. The present study develops and cross-validates an inconsistency scale for use with the UPPS-P and SUPPS-P in order to accurately screen for data quality and better detect invalid responding. A total of 443 participants were recruited from Amazon's MTurk online data collection service to serve as the derivation sample and 231 undergraduates were recruited to serve as the cross-validation sample. The inconsistency scale demonstrated good classification accuracy in differentiating between genuine and random protocols and moderated the relationships between the UPPS-P/SUPPS-P and a criterion measure of impulsivity, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11). Thus, the inconsistency scale shows promise as an indicator of variable response inconsistency for use with both the UPPS-P and SUPPS-P in community and undergraduate research samples.

Les progrès dans la réalisation de la classification quantitative de la psychopathologie.

Shortcomings of approaches to classifying psychopathology based on expert consensus have given rise to contemporary efforts to classify psychopathology quantitatively. In this paper, we review progress in achieving a quantitative and empirical classification of psychopathology. A substantial empirical literature indicates that psychopathology is generally more dimensional than categorical. When the discreteness versus continuity of psychopathology is treated as a research question, as opposed to being decided as a matter of tradition, the evidence clearly supports the hypothesis of continuity. In addition, a related body of literature shows how psychopathology dimensions can be arranged in a hierarchy, ranging from very broad "spectrum level" dimensions, to specific and narrow clusters of symptoms. In this way, a quantitative approach solves the "problem of comorbidity" by explicitly modeling patterns of co-occurrence among signs and symptoms within a detailed and variegated hierarchy of dimensional concepts with direct clinical utility. Indeed, extensive evidence pertaining to the dimensional and hierarchical structure of psychopathology has led to the formation of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) Consortium. This is a group of 70 investigators working together to study empirical classification of psychopathology. In this paper, we describe the aims and current foci of the HiTOP Consortium. These aims pertain to continued research on the empirical organization of psychopathology; the connection between personality and psychopathology; the utility of empirically based psychopathology constructs in both research and the clinic; and the development of novel and comprehensive models and corresponding assessment instruments for psychopathology constructs derived from an empirical approach.

Detecting Feigning in Adolescents on the Personality Assessment Inventory-Adolescent Form.

Much of the research on identifying feigning in psychological assessment has focused on adults with less attention to adolescents. The purpose of the present study is to expand the limited literature on detecting feigning in adolescents using the Personality Assessment Inventory - Adolescent. The study included 114 nonclinical adolescents (ages 15 to 18) recruited from high schools in the Midwest who were randomly assigned to experimental groups: honest nonclinical, uncoached feigning, and coached feigning. 50 randomly selected individuals with depression from the PAI-A clinical standardization sample were included as the honest clinical group. Sample demographics included a mean age of 16.64 years; 51.2% young men, 48.2% young women; 85.4% Caucasian, 6.7% African American, 5.5% Hispanic, and 2.4% Asian. 80% of feigning profiles reported clinical levels of depression. MANOVA results showed strong support for the Rogers Discriminant Function (RDF; d range = 1.85-2.05). The Negative Impression Management (NIM) scale also demonstrated promise (d range = 0.77-1.08), while the smallest effects for detecting feigning were found for the Malingering Index (d range = 0.58-0.70). The negative distortion indices showed good utility in differentiating between groups. Cut-scores and pragmatic implications are presented.

Criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP.

The categorical model of personality disorder classification in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ) is highly and fundamentally problematic. Proposed for DSM-5 and provided within Section III (for Emerging Measures and Models) was the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) classification, consisting of Criterion A (self-interpersonal deficits) and Criterion B (maladaptive personality traits). A proposed alternative to the DSM-5 more generally is an empirically based dimensional organization of psychopathology identified as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP; Kotov et al., 2017 ). HiTOP currently includes, at the highest level, a general factor of psychopathology. Further down are the five domains of detachment, antagonistic externalizing, disinhibited externalizing, thought disorder, and internalizing (along with a provisional sixth somatoform dimension) that align with Criterion B. The purpose of this article is to discuss the potential inclusion and placement of the self-interpersonal deficits of the DSM-5 Section III Criterion A within HiTOP.

Convergence between Rorschach and self-report: A new look at some old questions.

OBJECTIVE: This study presents an examination of the influence of response format on convergence between performance-based and self-report assessments of similar mental health constructs, to determine if such method variance might account for prior findings of lack of relationship. METHODS: An online sample of 455 participants (57% male; average age, 35.5) completed a multiple-choice version of the Rorschach and two self-report instruments, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) representation of the domain traits of the five-factor model (FFM). RESULTS: Several significant interrelationships emerged between the Rorschach Amplified Multiple Choice Test and the PAI and IPIP five-factor scales. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the Rorschach can correlate meaningfully with similar constructs assessed using self-report methodology when comparable response formats are utilized.

Convergence between Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and self-report: Another look at some old questions.

OBJECTIVE: This study extends upon the investigation of the influence of response format on the convergence between performance-based and self-report assessments of similar mental health constructs, to further examine the role of method variance in poor heteromethod convergence. METHODS: An online sample of 455 participants (57% male; mean age = 35.5 years) completed a multiple-choice adaptation of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)-the Iowa Picture Interpretation Test (IPIT)-and two self-report instruments: the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) representation of the domain traits of the five-factor model. RESULTS: Several significant and meaningful interrelationships emerged between the IPIT and the PAI and IPIP five-factor scales. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that TAT methodology can correlate meaningfully with similar constructs assessed using self-report when comparable response formats are utilized, offering further support for the role of method variance in precluding heteromethod relationships.

Validity of the DSM-5 Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report.

In this study we examined the structure, reliability, and validity of the Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report (LPFS-SR) in 3 large community samples. The LPFS-SR is a questionnaire with content that corresponds directly to the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders, Criterion A. We found that the LPFS-SR was highly reliable across a brief retest interval. LPFS-SR scores correlated substantially with a wide range of maladaptive personality traits, personality disorder constructs, and interpersonal problems. The LPFS-SR did not correlate as strongly with aspects of personality with less clear relations to distress and dysfunction. Data further support that identity, self-direction, intimacy, and empathy components of the LPFS-SR can be characterized by a single factor and have similar correlations with criterion variables, consistent with the hypothesis that DSM-5 Criterion A is a relatively homogeneous construct. Overall, these results support the validity of the LPFS-SR, highlight important issues in assessing personality pathology, and point toward novel avenues for research on personality disorder classification.

Evaluation of the PAI-A Anxiety and Depression Scales: Evidence of Construct Validity.

Against the background of a dearth of studies examining the properties of the scale scores of the Personality Assessment Inventory-Adolescent (PAI-A; Morey, 2007), this study was conducted to evaluate evidence of construct validity for the Anxiety (ANX) and Depression (DEP) scales of the PAI-A. Convergent and discriminant validity of the ANX and DEP scale scores were investigated using a sample of adolescents admitted to the adolescent program of a private tertiary care inpatient treatment facility. Multiple methods assessing anxious and depressive symptomology and diagnoses were included. Construct validity of the ANX and DEP scales was mostly supported. Advantages of using the PAI-A for the assessment of anxiety and depression were discussed.

Exploring the Assessment of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders With the Personality Assessment Inventory.

Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) contains an alternative model for the diagnosis of personality disorder involving the assessment of 25 traits and a global level of overall personality functioning. There is hope that this model will be increasingly used in clinical and research settings, and the ability to apply established instruments to assess these concepts could facilitate this process. This study sought to develop scoring algorithms for these alternative model concepts using scales from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). A multiple regression strategy used to predict scores in 2 undergraduate samples on DSM-5 alternative model instruments: the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) and the General Personality Pathology scale (GPP; Morey et al., 2011 ). These regression functions resulted in scores that demonstrated promising convergent and discriminant validity across the alternative model concepts, as well as a factor structure in a cross-validation sample that was congruent with the putative structure of the alternative model traits. Results were linked to the PAI community normative data to provide normative information regarding these alternative model concepts that can be used to identify elevated traits and personality functioning level scores.

Psychological Assessment with the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders: Tradition and Innovation.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Section III Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD; APA, 2013) represents an innovative system for simultaneous psychiatric classification and psychological assessment of personality disorders (PD). The AMPD combines major paradigms of personality assessment and provides an original, heuristic, flexible, and practical framework that enriches clinical thinking and practice. Origins, emerging research, and clinical application of the AMPD for diagnosis and psychological assessment are reviewed. The AMPD integrates assessment and research traditions, facilitates case conceptualization, is easy to learn and use, and assists in providing patient feedback. New as well as existing tests and psychometric methods may be used to operationalize the AMPD for clinical assessments.

Relating DSM-5 section II and section III personality disorder diagnostic classification systems to treatment planning.

BACKGROUND: Beginning with DSM-III, the inclusion of a "personality" axis was designed to encourage awareness of personality disorders and the treatment-related implications of individual differences, but since that time there is little accumulated evidence that the personality disorder categories provide substantial treatment-related guidance. The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group sought to develop an Alternative Model for personality disorder, and this study examined whether this model is more closely related to clinicians' decision-making processes than the traditional categorical personality disorder diagnoses. PROCEDURES: A national sample of 337 clinicians provided complete personality disorder diagnostic information and several treatment-related clinical judgments about one of their patients. FINDINGS: The dimensional concepts of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for personality disorders demonstrated stronger relationships than categorical DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II diagnoses to 10 of 11 clinical judgments regarding differential treatment planning, optimal treatment intensity, and long-term prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: The constructs of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for personality disorders may provide more clinically useful information for treatment planning than the official categorical personality disorder diagnostic system retained in DSM-5 Section II.

Therapeutic Assessment in Psychological Triage Using the PAI.

This case illustrates the utility of incorporating therapeutic assessment in a triage context that typically involves a focus on gathering information. A man referred to our clinic by a local mental health center was seen by our assessment team for a triage that includes the administration of a single psychological test, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Although this triage must rapidly gather information to determine client suitability and treatment assignment, we still attempt to work with clients to collaboratively develop goals for this assessment that include addressing questions that are central concerns for the clients. In this case, the test results suggested a severe disorder that accounted for many phenomena that he had been experiencing but had apparently been reluctant to share. The information gathered led to a referral to a different treatment program that could provide pharmacological and more intensive forms of treatment. However, the collaborative bond formed between the assessor and the client during this triage was sufficiently strong that it was our assessor to whom the client turned in a subsequent crisis precipitated by a symptomatic exacerbation. This case illustrates complementary information gathering and therapeutic goals of assessment even in the context of a brief assessment.

Personality disorders in DSM-5: emerging research on the alternative model.

The current categorical classification of personality disorders, originally introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III), has been found to suffer from numerous shortcomings that hamper its usefulness for research and for clinical application. The Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group for DSM-5 was charged with developing an alternative model that would address many of these concerns. The developed model involved a hybrid dimensional/categorical model that represented personality disorders as combinations of core impairments in personality functioning with specific configurations of problematic personality traits. The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association did not accept the Task Force recommendation to implement this novel approach, and thus this alternative model was included in Sect. III of the DSM-5 among concepts requiring additional study. This review provides an overview of the emerging research on this alternative model, addressing each of the primary components of the model.

Comparing the DSM-5 categorical model of personality disorders and the alternative model of personality disorders regarding clinician judgments of risk and outcome.

The goal of this study was to compare the predictive validity of the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) versus the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Section II categorical model regarding clinician judgments about mental health outcomes. To do so, we instructed a national sample of 136 mental health professionals to provide clinical judgments on a random subset of four (out of a possible 12) case vignettes. For each case, they made a variety of diagnostic judgments corresponding to each model, as well as clinical outcome judgments (e.g., prognosis). Our analyses included hierarchical and individual regressions to compare the predictive value of each diagnostic system toward these clinical outcome judgments. We found that the AMPD predictors consistently added unique variance beyond the Section II predictors, whereas the Section II predictors were rarely incremental above the AMPD. Further, the AMPD judgments predicted outcome judgments very consistently (98.3% of regressions) compared to the Section II predictors (70% of regressions), and the single Criterion A judgment (level of personality functioning) was the strongest overall predictor. Finally, the categorical borderline personality disorder diagnoses from the two systems performed similarly in predicting clinical outcomes and agreed in 79% of cases. We interpreted our results to suggest that the AMPD is at least as effective, and by some measures more effective, than the DSM-5 categorical model at predicting clinician's judgment of outcomes in clinical cases. We conclude by discussing the value of this evidence in relation to the broader AMPD literature, as well as possible paths forward for the diagnosis of personality disorders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Individuals with single versus multiple suicide attempts over 10years of prospective follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The study attempted to identify characteristics that differentiate multiple suicide attempters from single attempters in individuals with personality disorders (PDs) and/or major depression. METHOD: Participants were 431 participants enrolled in the Collaborative Longitudinal Study of Personality Disorders from July 1996 to June 2008. Suicide attempts were assessed with the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation at 6 and 12months, then yearly through 10years. Logistic regression was used to compare single attempters to multiple attempters on Axis I and II psychiatric disorders and personality trait variables. RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of participants attempted suicide during the 10years of observation, with 39 (9.0%) reporting a single suicide attempt and 54 (12.5%) reporting multiple suicide attempts. Although no significant differences in were found in baseline Axis I disorders, multiple attempters were significantly more likely to meet criteria for borderline personality disorder and to have higher impulsivity scores than single attempters. CONCLUSION: These results underscore the importance of considering both personality disorders and traits in the assessment of suicidality.

Stability and change in personality disorders.

Stability is thought to be one of the major distinguishing features between personality disorders (PDs) and other forms of psychopathology. The development of more reliable PD assessments and the implementation of four major longitudinal studies on PD stability have provided critical data with which to evaluate the stability of PD features. Results from these and other studies reveal significant complexity in the interpretation of PD stability because of several issues that can impact stability estimates. Such estimates will vary as a function of the type of constructs being assessed, the type of stability being considered, the modality and reliability of the assessments being used, and the impacts of sampling. In this article, longitudinal research on PD stability is reviewed in the context of these issues. It is concluded that no single answer can be given to the question, "How stable are PDs?" and that future research and classification need to consider carefully and account for the complexity of this question.

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.

Ten-year rank-order stability of personality traits and disorders in a clinical sample.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the 10-year retest stability of normal traits, pathological traits, and personality disorder dimensions in a clinical sample. METHOD: Ten-year rank-order stability estimates for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality, and Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders were evaluated before and after correcting for test-retest dependability and internal consistency in a clinical sample (N = 266). RESULTS: Dependability-corrected stability estimates were generally in the range of.60-.90 for traits and.25-.65 for personality disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively lower stability of personality disorder symptoms may indicate important differences between pathological behaviors and relatively more stable self-attributed traits and imply that a full understanding of personality and personality pathology needs to take both traits and symptoms into account. The five-factor theory distinction between basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations provides a theoretical framework for the separation of traits and disorders in terms of stability in which traits reflect basic tendencies that are stable and pervasive across situations, whereas personality disorder symptoms reflect characteristic maladaptations that are a function of both basic tendencies and environmental dynamics.