[Validation of a screening procedure for borderline personality disorder based on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders]. / Validation d'une procédure de dépistage du trouble de personnalité limite selon le Modèle alternatif pour les troubles de la personnalité du DSM-5.

Objectives The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes an Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (DSM-5), which defines personality disorders based on two dimensional criteria. Criterion A corresponds to the severity of personality dysfunction in the areas of self and interpersonal functioning, while Criterion B comprises five pathological domains including a total of 25 facets. Six specific disorders, including borderline personality disorder (BPD), are defined in the AMPD based on Criteria A and B. However, there is currently very little data on these diagnoses as they are operationalized in the MATP. This study aims to present data on this recent operationalization of BPD. More specifically, we will first introduce a procedure, based on self-reported questionnaires covering the two main MATP criteria, implemented to generate the BPD diagnosis from the AMPD. Then, we will assess its validity (a) by documenting its prevalence in a clinical sample; (b) by determining its degree of correspondence with the "traditional" BPD categorical diagnosis and with a dimensional measure of borderline symptomatology; (c) by presenting convergent validity data with constructs relevant to the study of BPD (impulsivity, aggression); and (d) by determining the incremental validity of the proposed procedure in contrast with a simplified approach where only Criterion B would be considered. Method Data from 287 patients recruited as part of the admission process at the Centre de traitement le Faubourg Saint-Jean of the CIUSSS-Capitale-Nationale were analyzed. The BPD diagnosis from the MATP was generated based on two validated self-report questionnaires, in their French version, namely the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (Criterion A) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Faceted Brief Form (Criterion B). Results The BPD diagnosis, as operationalized in the AMPD, had a prevalence of 39.7% in the sample. A moderate fit with the clinician's diagnosis of BPD according to the traditional DSM-5 categorical model was observed, as well as a strong correlation with a dimensional measure of borderline symptomatology. Nomological network analysis revealed high and theoretically expected correlations between the disorder and measures of aggression and impulsivity. The proposed diagnostic extraction procedure, which uses Criteria A and B, showed incremental validity in the statistical prediction of external variables (borderline symptomatology, aggression, impulsivity) compared to a simplified procedure using only Criterion B. Conclusions The proposed procedure for generating the BPD diagnosis according to the MATP definition yields promising results and could allow screening for the disorder based on this contemporary conceptualization of personality pathologies.

[Perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence: Personological profiles of people with borderline personality disorder]. / Violence conjugale commise et subie : profils personnologiques de personnes avec un trouble de personnalité limite.

Objective Personality disorders and intimate partner violence (IPV) are two problems recognized as major public health issues associated with serious individual and societal repercussions. Several studies have documented the links between borderline personality disorder (BPD) and IPV; however, we know very little about the specific pathological traits contributing to IPV. The study aims to document the phenomenon of IPV committed and suffered in persons with BPD and to draw profiles from the personality facets of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Method One hundred and eight BPD participants (83.3% female; Mage = 32.39, SD = 9.00) referred to a day hospital program following a crisis episode completed a battery of questionnaires including the French versions of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, evaluating physical and psychological IPV committed and suffered, and the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5- Faceted Brief Form, evaluating 25 pathological facets of personality. Results Among the participants, 78.7% report having committed psychological IPV, while 68.5% have been victims, which is more than the estimates published by the World Health Organization (27%). In addition, 31.5% would have committed physical IPV, while 22.2% would have been victims. IPV appears to be bidirectional since 85.9% of participants who are perpetrators of psychological IPV also report suffering from it and 52.9% of participants who are perpetrators of physical IPV report being also victims. Nonparametric group comparisons indicate that Hostility, Suspiciousness, Duplicity, Risk-Taking, and Irresponsibility facets distinguish physically and psychologically violent participants from nonviolent participants. High results on Hostility, Callousness, Manipulation, and Risk-taking facets characterize participants who are victims of psychological IPV, while an elevation in Hostility, Withdrawal, Avoidance of intimacy, and Risk-taking facets and a low result on the Submission facet distinguish participants who are victims of physical IPV from non-victims. Regression analyzes show that the Hostility facet alone explains a significant variance in the results of IPV perpetrated, while the Irresponsibility facet contributes substantially to the variance of the results of IPV experienced. Conclusion Results show the high prevalence of IPV in a sample of persons with BPD, as well as its bidirectional nature. Beyond the diagnosis of BPD, certain specific facets of the personality (including Hostility and Irresponsability) make it possible to target persons at greater risk of committing and suffering from psychological and physical IPV.

[Psychotherapy prognostic factors for personality disorders (PD) treatment: The role of self-reported questionnaires]. / Facteurs pronostiques à la psychothérapie chez les troubles de la personnalité : implication de questionnaires autorapportés.

Objectives Dropout rates in psychotherapy are known to be high in patients with personality disorders (PD; ranging from 25% and 64% for Borderline PD). Faced with this observation, the Treatment Attrition-Retention Scale for Personality Disorders (TARS-PD; Gamache et coll., 2017) was developed to precisely identify patients with PD at high risk of abandoning therapy based on 15 criteria, regrouped in 5 factors: Pathological Narcissism, Antisocial/Psychopathy, Secondary Gain, Low Motivation, and Cluster A Features. However, we have limited knowledge about the relevance of self-reported questionnaires commonly used with PD patients to establish treatment prognosis. Thus, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the link between such questionnaires and the five factors of the TARS-PD. Method Data was retrospectively retrieved from the clinical files of 174 participants with a PD (including 56% with borderline traits or PD), who were evaluated at the Centre de traitement le Faubourg Saint-Jean and completed the French version of the following questionnaires: Borderline Symptom List (BSL-23), Brief Version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (B-PNI), Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ), Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ), Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (SIFS) and Personality Inventory for DSM-5- Faceted Brief Form (PID-5-FBF). The TARS-PD was completed by well-trained psychologists specialized in PD treatment. Descriptive analyses and regression between self-reported questionnaires and the five factors of the TARS-PD as well as its total score were performed to determine which variables from the self-reported questionnaires completed by the individuals contribute most strongly to the statistical prediction of the variables of the TARS-PD rated by the clinicians. Results The subscales that significantly contribute to the Pathological Narcissism factor (adjusted R2=0,12) are: Empathy (SIFS), Impulsivity (negatively; PID-5), and Entitlement Rage (B-PNI). The subscales associated with the Antisociality/Psychopathy factor (adjusted R2=0,24) are Manipulativeness, Submissiveness (negatively), and Callousness from the PID-5, and Empathic Concern (IRI). The scales contributing substantially to the Secondary gains factor (adjusted R2=0,20) are Frequency (SFQ), Anger (negatively; BPAQ), Fantasy (negatively) and Empathic Concern (IRI), Rigid Perfectionism (negatively) and Unusual Beliefs and Experiences (PID-5). Low motivation (adjusted R2=0,10) is significantly explained by Total BSL score (negatively) and Satisfaction (SFQ) subscale. Finally, the subscales significantly associated to Cluster A features (adjusted R2=0,09) are Intimacy (SIFS) and Submissiveness (negatively, PID-5). Conclusion Some scales from self-reported questionnaires demonstrated modest but significant associations with TARS-PD factors. Those scales might be useful in the scoring of the TARS-PD and provide additional information for patients' clinical orientation.

Assessment of personality organization in couple relationships: factorial structure of the inventory of personality organization and incremental validity over neuroticism.

Drawing on a sample of 372 French-Canadian couples, this study examined the factorial structure of a 20-item abbreviated version of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO) across a sample of couples and tested if identity diffusion, primitive defenses, and reality testing explain additional variance in couple distress when controlling for neuroticism. The IPO is based on Kernberg's conceptualization of personality organization (Kernberg, 1976 ). Gender differences were also studied through an examination of the value of both self-reported and partner-reported personality in the prediction of each partner's couple satisfaction. Results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the tripartite model of the short version of the IPO provided an acceptable fit and proved invariant when tested on couples. Actor-Partner Interdependence Model analyses (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006 ) showed that elevated neuroticism predicted higher endorsement of primitive defenses, which in turn predict couple dissatisfaction. There was also a direct, negative path from neuroticism to dyadic adjustment. Finally, self-reported neuroticism scores predicted high utilization of primitive defenses by the partner, and low partner-reported couple satisfaction. Furthermore, high self-reported utilization of primitive defenses predicted low couple satisfaction.