Convergence of the dimensional assessment of personality pathology (DAPP-BQ) and the five-factor personality inventory for the international classification of diseases 11th edition (FFiCD) in the context of the five-factor model and personality disorders.

The current manuscript presents the convergence of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP-BQ), using its short form the DAPP-90, and the Five-Factor Personality Inventory for International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), the FFiCD, in the context of the five-factor personality model and the categorical approach of personality disorders (PDs). The current manuscript compares the predictive validity of both the FFiCD and the DAPP-90 regarding personality disorder scales and clusters. Results demonstrate a very high and meaningful convergence between the DAPP-90 and the FFiCD personality pathology models and a strong alignment with the FFM. The DAPP-90 and the FFiCD also present an almost identical predictive power of PDs. The DAPP-90 accounts for between 18% and 47%, and the FFiCD between 21% and 47% of PDs adjusted variance. It is concluded that both DAPP-90 and FFiCD questionnaires measure strongly similar pathological personality traits that could be described within the frame of the FFM. Additionally, both questionnaires predict a very similar percentage of the variance of personality disorders.

Narcissistic personality disorder in the ICD-11: Severity and trait profiles of grandiosity and vulnerability.

Modern diagnostic and classification frameworks such as the ICD-11 and DSM-5-AMPD have adopted a dimensional approach to diagnosing personality disorder using a dual "severity" and "trait" model. As narcissistic personality has historically struggled to be adequately captured in dominant diagnostic systems, this study investigated the utility of the new ICD-11 framework in capturing diverse narcissistic expressions. Participants were mental health clinicians (N = 180, 67% female, age = 38.9), who completed ratings of ICD-11 personality severity, trait domains and a clinical reflection for two hypothetical case vignettes reflecting either prototypical "grandiose" or "vulnerable" narcissism. The majority of clinicians (82%) endorsed a diagnosis of personality disorder for both grandiose and vulnerable vignettes. Discriminant elements of personality impairment included rigid, unrealistically positive self-view, low empathy and high conflict with others for grandiosity, and incoherent identity, low self-esteem and hypervigilant, avoidant relations with others for vulnerability. Regarding trait profile, grandiose narcissism was predominately dissocial whereas vulnerable narcissism was primarily associated with negative affectivity and detachment. Qualitative responses highlight distinct clinical themes for each presentation. These findings suggest that clinicians using the ICD-11 framework are able to identify common core elements of personality dysfunction in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism while also recognizing their distinctive differences.

Group schema therapy for patients with cluster-C personality disorders: A case study on avoidant personality disorder.

This article presents a clinical illustration of group schema therapy (GST) for cluster-C personality disorders (CL-C PDs) to provide therapists an example on how one can perform GST for CL-C PDs and break through persistent avoidance and control mechanisms. A summary of evidence supporting the effectiveness of GST for CL-C PD's is given followed by an overview of basic principles of schema therapy and GST. A case presentation next illustrates the application of GST principles and interventions in the GST CL-C protocol, which improve clients understanding of emotional core needs and development of adaptive ways of getting needs better met, instead of avoiding life. Implications of the case for future applications of GST for CL-C PDs are discussed.

Dimensions over categories: a meta-analysis of taxometric research.

Taxometric procedures have been used extensively to investigate whether individual differences in personality and psychopathology are latently dimensional or categorical ('taxonic'). We report the first meta-analysis of taxometric research, examining 317 findings drawn from 183 articles that employed an index of the comparative fit of observed data to dimensional and taxonic data simulations. Findings supporting dimensional models outnumbered those supporting taxonic models five to one. There were systematic differences among 17 construct domains in support for the two models, but psychopathology was no more likely to generate taxonic findings than normal variation (i.e. individual differences in personality, response styles, gender, and sexuality). No content domain showed aggregate support for the taxonic model. Six variables - alcohol use disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, problem gambling, autism, suicide risk, and pedophilia - emerged as the most plausible taxon candidates based on a preponderance of independently replicated findings. We also compared the 317 meta-analyzed findings to 185 additional taxometric findings from 96 articles that did not employ the comparative fit index. Studies that used the index were 4.88 times more likely to generate dimensional findings than those that did not after controlling for construct domain, implying that many taxonic findings obtained before the popularization of simulation-based techniques are spurious. The meta-analytic findings support the conclusion that the great majority of psychological differences between people are latently continuous, and that psychopathology is no exception.

Personalized models of personality disorders: using a temporal network method to understand symptomatology and daily functioning in a clinical sample.

BACKGROUND: An ongoing challenge in understanding and treating personality disorders (PDs) is a significant heterogeneity in disorder expression, stemming from variability in underlying dynamic processes. These processes are commonly discussed in clinical settings, but are rarely empirically studied due to their personalized, temporal nature. The goal of the current study was to combine intensive longitudinal data collection with person-specific temporal network models to produce individualized symptom-level structures of personality pathology. These structures were then linked to traditional PD diagnoses and stress (to index daily functioning). METHODS: Using about 100 daily assessments of internalizing and externalizing domains underlying PDs (i.e. negative affect, detachment, impulsivity, hostility), a temporal network mapping approach (i.e. group iterative multiple model estimation) was used to create person-specific networks of the temporal relations among domains for 91 individuals (62.6% female) with a PD. Network characteristics were then associated with traditional PD symptomatology (controlling for mean domain levels) and with daily variation in clinically-relevant phenomena (i.e. stress). RESULTS: Features of the person-specific networks predicted paranoid, borderline, narcissistic, and obsessive-PD symptom counts above average levels of the domains, in ways that align with clinical conceptualizations. They also predicted between-person variation in stress across days. CONCLUSIONS: Relations among behavioral domains thought to underlie heterogeneity in PDs were indeed associated with traditional diagnostic constructs and with daily functioning (i.e. stress) in person-specific networks. Findings highlight the importance of leveraging data and models that capture person-specific, dynamic processes, and suggest that person-specific networks may have implications for precision medicine.

The General Factor of Psychopathology.

An important advance in understanding and defining mental disorders has been the development of empirical approaches to mapping dimensions of dysfunction and their interrelatedness. Such empirical approaches have consistently observed intercorrelations among the many forms of psychopathology, leading to the identification of a general factor of psychopathology (the p factor). In this article, we review empirical support for p, including evidence for the stability and criterion validity of p. Further, we discuss the strong relationship between p and both the general factor of personality and the general factor of personality disorder, substantive interpretations of p, and the potential clinical utility of p. We posit that proposed substantive interpretations of p do not explain the full range of symptomatology typically included in p. The most plausible explanation is that p represents an index of impairment that has the potential to inform the duration and intensity of a client's mental health treatment.

The borderline pattern descriptor in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision: A redundant addition to classification.

OBJECTIVE: The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision classification of personality disorder removes all categories of disorder in favour of a single diagnostic spectrum extending from no personality dysfunction to severe personality disorder. Following concerns from some clinicians and Personality Disorder Societies, it was subsequently agreed to include a borderline pattern descriptor as a qualifier of the main diagnosis. We explore the value of this additional descriptor by examining personality data in patients with major depression. METHOD: We examined personality data obtained using the Structured Clinical Interview for Personality Disorder-II in 606 patients enrolled in five randomised controlled trials of depression. The Structured Clinical Interview for Personality Disorder-II uses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders categorical system, which includes borderline personality disorder. The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision classification has five domain traits. Each of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders personality disorder symptoms or behaviours from Structured Clinical Interview for Personality Disorder-II was reordered into the five domains independently by two assessors. The relationship between the two systems was examined by tabular and correlational analysis. RESULTS: The findings showed that the symptoms of borderline personality disorder were associated with greater severity of personality disturbance in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision classification (p < 0.0001) and were associated primarily with the Negative Affective, Dissocial and Disinhibited domains. There was only a weak association with the other two domains, Anankastia and Detachment. CONCLUSION: The addition of a borderline pattern descriptor is likely to add little to the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision classification of personality disorder. Its features are well represented within the severity/domain structure, which allows for more fine-grained description of the personality features that constitute the borderline concept.

International Assessment of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Traits: Toward a Common Nosology in DSM-5.1.

INTRODUCTION: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders (PD) are largely commensurate and, when combined, they delineate 6 trait domains: negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, disinhibition, anankastia, and psychoticism. OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated the international validity of a brief 36-item patient-report measure that portrays all 6 domains simultaneously including 18 primary subfacets. METHODS: We developed and employed a modified version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 - Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+). A total of 16,327 individuals were included, 2,347 of whom were patients. The expected 6-factor structure of facets was initially investigated in samples from Denmark (n = 584), Germany (n = 1,271), and the USA (n = 605) and subsequently replicated in both patient- and community samples from Italy, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, the USA, and Brazil. Associations with interview-rated DSM-5 PD categories were also investigated. RESULTS: Findings generally supported the empirical soundness and international robustness of the 6 domains including meaningful associations with familiar interview-rated PD types. CONCLUSIONS: The modified PID5BF+ may be employed internationally by clinicians and researchers for brief and reliable assessment of the 6 combined DSM-5 and ICD-11 domains, including 18 primary subfacets. This 6-domain framework may inform a future nosology for DSM-5.1 that is more reasonably aligned with the authoritative ICD-11 codes than the current DSM-5 AMPD model. The 36-item modified PID5BF+ scoring key is provided in online supplementary Appendix A see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000507589 (for all online suppl. material).

Facet-level analysis of the relations between personality and laboratory aggression.

Multiple reviews and meta-analyses have identified the low pole of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) Agreeableness (also called Antagonism) as the primary domain-level personality correlates of aggression across self-report and behavioral methodologies. In the current study, we expand on this literature by investigating the relations between FFM facets and aggressive behavior as measured by laboratory competitive reaction time tasks (CRTTs). Across three samples (total N = 639), we conducted weighted mean analyses, multiple regression analyses, and dominance analyses to determine which FFM facets were the strongest predictors of aggression within and across domains. These analyses suggested that facets of Agreeableness were among the strongest consistent predictors of CRTT aggression, including Sympathy (r = -.21) and Cooperation (r = -.14), but facets from other FFM domains also yielded meaningful relations (e.g., Anger from Neuroticism; r = .17). We conclude by discussing these results in the context of controversies surrounding laboratory aggression paradigms and emphasizing the importance of considering small effect sizes in the prediction of societally harmful behavior like aggression.

[Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults in the clinical description and classification of Emil Kraepelin]. / Die Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit­/Hyperaktivitätsstörung bei Erwachsenen in der klinischen Beschreibung und der Klassifikation von Emil Kraepelin.

This study presents descriptions of symptoms specific to the adult form of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the 8th edition of the Textbook on Psychiatry by Emil Kraepelin (1856-1926). To identify whether ADHD is a new, fashionable phenomenon in adults or whether early psychiatrists also saw such patients and how they classified them, this textbook is an essential source. Published between 1905 and 1915, it can be perceived as the culmination and at the same time terminal point of Kraepelin's conceptual and nosological work, which in turn marked the beginning of present-day psychiatric classification. Kraepelin did not perceive ADHD as a psychiatric entity of its own, which is either due to the fact that he saw no necessity to do so or that he did not recognize this. If the latter, Kraepelin may have been misled by the manifold psychiatric comorbidities typical for ADHD, which may have masked ADHD. Kraepelin seems to have grouped patients obviously suffering from the adult form of ADHD into two groups: on the one hand into the so-called basic constitution (Grundzustand) of manic-depressive disorder, which he called manic disposition or constitutional excitement (manische Veranlagung oder konstitutionelle Erregung) and on the other hand into the so-called group of anchorless people (Haltlose), which he perceived as a special form of psychopathic personality. It seems that Kraepelin grouped milder grades of ADHD with predominantly ADHD-associated mood swings into the group of manic disposition while grouping more severe forms, which usually occur together with distinct personality disorders and addictive disorders, into that of anchorless people.

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.

The Development of the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders: An Amalgam of Science, Pragmatism, and Politics.

The nomenclature of personality disorders in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems represents the most radical change in the classification history of personality disorders. A dimensional structure now replaces categorical description. It was argued by the Working Group that only a dimensional system was consistent with the empirical evidence and, in the spirit of clinical utility, the new system is based on two steps. The first step is to assign one of five levels of severity, and the second step is to assign up to five prominent domain traits. There was resistance to this structure from those who feel that categorical diagnosis, particularly of borderline personality disorder, should be retained. After lengthy discussion, described in detail here, there is now an option for a borderline pattern descriptor to be selected as a diagnostic option after severity has been determined.

Validating the Alternative DSM-5 Criteria for Personality Disorders: A Study in the Basque Region of Spain.

In 2010, the Working Group of Personality and Personality Disorders of the DSM-5 task force proposed a thorough diagnostic reformulation of the category of personality disorders. After debates and negotiations, these alternative criteria ended in Section III of the DSM-5 manual (diagnoses in need of further testing). We tested these alternative criteria in a sample of Basque-speaking patients from the Basque region of Spain who had clinical diagnoses of personality disorder, using instruments that had been developed and used as part of the DSM-5 field trials in the United States for assessing the proposed new diagnostic category. All study instruments were translated and adapted for use in the Basque language. Interviews were done twice (time 1 and time 2) and were scheduled at least 1 month apart to assess test-retest reliability. The results demonstrated that the DSM-5 alternative criteria worked well in this clinical sample, with highly satisfactory levels of reliability being attained and a good level of clinician's satisfaction related to the use of the new criteria. The alternative criteria in personality disorders seemed to work well in this European sample with unique linguistic features.

Unique and shared features of narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders: Implications for assessing and modeling externalizing traits.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine which, if any, features distinguish antisocial and narcissistic personality disorders (ASPD and NPD), two overlapping externalizing disorders. METHODS: A large sample of outpatients (N = 2,149) completed interview measures assessing personality pathology, other psychopathology, and impairment. The structure of antisocial and narcissistic traits was examined using both exploratory bifactor and traditional exploratory factor analytic approaches, and we examined relations for our emergent factors. RESULTS: Factor analytic results indicated that most narcissistic and antisocial traits were strongly overlapping, although some features emerged as relatively distinct (e.g., arrogance defining NPD). Factors modeling our specific bifactor dimensions showed very weak psychopathology and impairment relations. CONCLUSIONS: The structure of ASPD and NPD traits does not align neatly with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) Section II conceptualizations, Regardless of the factor analytic approach used. Our findings also indicate that specific dimensions defining these PDs show modest predictive power after accounting for a general externalizing dimension.

Moving beyond categories and dimensions in personality pathology assessment and diagnosis.

It has been suggested that a dimensional model of personality pathology should be adopted for the development and refinement of personality disorder classification. In this article, the advantages and challenges of moving toward a dimensional model are briefly reviewed. However, it is suggested that although categories and dimensions are valuable frameworks for personality pathology diagnosis, an expansion beyond categories and dimensions is needed to improve the shortcoming seen in current diagnostic systems. Ideas and examples are offered for how this might occur.Declaration of interestNone.

The construct validity of general and specific dimensions of personality pathology.

BACKGROUND: Modern personality disorder (PD) theory and research attempt to distinguish transdiagnostic impairments common to all PDs from constructs that explain varied PD expression. Bifactor modeling tests such distinctions; however, the only published PD criteria bifactor analysis focused on only 6 PDs and did not examine the model's construct validity. METHODS: We examined the structure and construct validity of competing PD criteria models using confirmatory and exploratory factor analytic methods in 628 patients who completed structured diagnostic interviews and self-reports of personality traits and impairment. RESULTS: Relative to alternative models, two bifactor models - one confirmatory model with 10 specific factors for each PD (acceptable fit) and one exploratory model with four specific factors resembling broad personality domains (excellent fit) - fit best and were compared via connections with external criteria. General and specific factors related meaningfully and differentially to personality traits, internalizing symptoms, substance use, and multiple indices of psychosocial impairment. As hypothesized, the general factor predicted interpersonal dysfunction above and beyond other psychopathology. The general factor also correlated strongly with many pathological personality traits. CONCLUSIONS: The present study supported the validity of a model with both a general PD impairment dimension and separate individual difference dimensions; however, it also indicated that currently prominent models, which assume general PD impairments and personality traits are non-overlapping, may be misspecified.

Prevalence of axis II comorbidities in bipolar disorder: relationship to mood state.

OBJECTIVES: A high incidence of Axis II personality disorders is described in patients with bipolar disorder; however, their relationship to mood state remains uncertain. METHODS: A total of 966 outpatients with bipolar disorder gave informed consent and filled out the Personality Disorder Questionnaire, 4th edition (PDQ4) and a questionnaire on demographics and course of illness prior to Bipolar Treatment Outcome Network entry at average age 41 years. Patients were rated at each visit for depression on the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms-Clinician version (IDS-C) and for mania on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). In a subgroup, the PDQ4 was retaken during periods of depression and euthymia. RESULTS: Patients met criteria for most personality disorders at a much higher rate when they took the PDQ4 while depressed compared to while euthymic, and scores were significantly related to the severity of depression (IDS) and of mania (YMRS) assessed within 2 weeks of taking the PDQ. Even when euthymic, more than quarter to half of the patients met criteria for a cluster A, B or C personality disorder. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of personality disorders occur in bipolar patients, but are highly dependent on filling out the form while depressed compared to while euthymic. How this relates to having a personality disorder assessed using a structured clinical interview remains to be tested. However, higher PDQ4 scores are related to an earlier age of onset of bipolar disorder and other factors portending a more difficult course of bipolar disorder, and the optimal treatment of these patients remains to be illuminated.

Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders.

BACKGROUND: The ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders focuses on core personality dysfunction, while allowing the practitioner to classify three levels of severity (Mild Personality Disorder, Moderate Personality Disorder, and Severe Personality Disorder) and the option of specifying one or more prominent trait domain qualifiers (Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Disinhibition, Dissociality, and Anankastia). Additionally, the practitioner is also allowed to specify a Borderline Pattern qualifier. This article presents how the ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification may be applied in clinical practice using five brief cases. CASE PRESENTATION: (1) a 29-year-old woman with Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity, Disinhibition, and Dissociality; (2) a 36-year-old man with Mild Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Detachment; (3) a 26-year-old man with Severe Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Detachment; (4) a 19-year-old woman with Personality Difficulty, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Anankastia; (5) a 53-year-old man with Moderate Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Anankastia and Dissociality. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification was applicable to five clinical cases, which were classified according to Personaity Disorder severity and trait domain qualifiers. We propose that the classification of severity may help inform clinical prognosis and intensity of treatment, whereas the coding of trait qualifiers may help inform the focus and style of treatment. Empirical investigation of such important aspects of clinical utility are warranted.

Personality Disorders Are Not as We Thought: Hierarchical Factor Structure at the Criterion Level.

The use of personality disorder (PD) categories persists, despite the evidence against them. An often overlooked reason for this is the fact that the true structure underlying the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) taxonomy is still unknown: We cannot be certain which disorders are valid, and which ones are arbitrary mixtures of heterogeneous traits. To address this gap, we factor analyzed the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ-4+; Hyler, 1994 ) at the criterion level in a mixed clinical and nonclinical sample of 2,519 individuals. The resulting structure was more similar to current dimensional taxonomies than to the DSM classification at all hierarchical levels. Whereas paranoid and antisocial PDs-and to a lesser extent avoidant, dependent, depressive, and schizoid PDs-were fairly homogeneous, all other disorders turned out to be combinations of 2 or 3 unrelated dimensions. Our results strongly support the structure of empirically based dimensional taxonomies and relocate DSM criteria within this emerging framework, thus contributing to preserving much of the knowledge accumulated to date.

[A new approach to classifying Personality Disorders]. / Neue Wege der Klassifikation von Persönlichkeitsstörungen in ICD-11.

Starting from the still valid ICD-10 classification of personality disorders, this text presents the process initiated and led by the WHO that aims at a fundamental change of conceptualizing personality disorders in ICD-11. The categorical classification of differential types based on polythetic criteria list will be replaced by a widely dimensional classification; in case the general criteria of a personality disorder are given, three severity levels and five trait domains are differentiated. In the original draft of the ICD-11 group, the trait qualifiers were meant only to be used in the expert setting and the severity levels described psychosocial impacts only. Meanwhile a revised draft has been prepared by the International societies for the study of personality disorders which operationalize the severity levels in a more systematized way by describing functional impairments of the self as well as of interpersonal relationships, presenting symptoms concerning emotions, cognitions and behaviors and evaluating the psychosocial impacts.