Applying the Somatic Symptom Disorder Diagnosis to Individuals with Fibromyalgia: Strengths and Limitations.

Amidst broad changes to the somatic disorder diagnoses, DSM-IV pain disorder was absorbed into DSM-5's somatic symptom disorder (SSD) as a specifier. However, clinical research testing of its use for the chronic pain population has been limited and its utility remains inconclusive. Using the exemplar of fibromyalgia, this article evaluates the validity, reliability, clinical utility, and acceptability of the SSD pain specifier. The diagnosis appears to have moderate validity but low specificity for the fibromyalgia population. The pain specifier has neither undergone sufficient field testing nor been evaluated for use by medical providers, with available data suggesting low reliability. Further research is needed to establish clinical utility via assessment of differential treatment outcomes. Concerns about social, legal, and economic consequences of classifying pain patients with a mental health diagnosis are outstanding. The current SSD criteria should be used with caution among the fibromyalgia patient population until its application for chronic pain has been further researched.

Diagnostic classification of irritability and oppositionality in youth: a global field study comparing ICD-11 with ICD-10 and DSM-5.

BACKGROUND: Severe irritability has become an important topic in child and adolescent mental health. Based on the available evidence and on public health considerations, WHO classified chronic irritability within oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in ICD-11, a solution markedly different from DSM-5's (i.e. the new childhood mood diagnosis, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder [DMDD]) and from ICD-10's (i.e. ODD as one of several conduct disorders without attention to irritability). In this study, we tested the accuracy with which a global, multilingual, multidisciplinary sample of clinicians were able to use the ICD-11 classification of chronic irritability and oppositionality as compared to the ICD-10 and DSM-5 approaches. METHODS: Clinicians (N = 196) from 48 countries participated in an Internet-based field study in English, Spanish, or Japanese and were randomized to review and use one of the three diagnostic systems. Through experimental manipulation of validated clinical vignettes, we evaluated how well clinicians in each condition could identify chronic irritability versus nonirritable oppositionality, episodic bipolar disorder, dysthymic depression, and normative irritability. RESULTS: Compared to ICD-10 and DSM-5, ICD-11 led to more accurate identification of severe irritability and better differentiation from boundary presentations. Participants using DSM-5 largely failed to apply the DMDD diagnosis when it was appropriate, and they more often applied psychopathological diagnoses to developmentally normative irritability. CONCLUSIONS: The formulation of irritability and oppositionality put forth in ICD-11 shows evidence of clinical utility, supporting accurate diagnosis. Global mental health clinicians can readily identify ODD both with and without chronic irritability.

Can Clinicians Use Dimensional Information to Make a Categorical Diagnosis of Paraphilic Disorders? An ICD-11 Field Study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of paraphilic disorder is a complicated clinical judgment based on the integration of information from multiple dimensions to arrive at a categorical (present/absent) conclusion. The recent update of the guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11 presents an opportunity to investigate how mental health professionals use the diagnostic guidelines to arrive at a diagnosis which thereby can optimize the guidelines for clinical use. AIM: This study examined clinicians' ability to use the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders which contain multiple dimensions that must be simultaneously assessed to arrive at a diagnosis. METHODS: The study investigated the ability of 1,263 international clinicians to identify the dimensions of paraphilic disorder in the context of written case vignettes that varied on a single dimension only. OUTCOMES: Participants provided diagnoses for the case vignettes along with dimensional ratings of the degree of presence of five dimensions of paraphilic disorder (arousal, consent, action, distress, and risk). RESULTS: Across a series of analyses, clinicians demonstrated a clear ability to recognize and appropriately integrate the dimensions of paraphilic disorders; however, there was some evidence that clinicians may over-diagnose non-pathological cases. CLINICAL TRANSLATION: Clinicians would likely benefit from targeted training on the ICD-11 definition of paraphilic disorder and should be cautious of over-diagnosing. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study represents a large international sample of health professionals and is the first to examine clinicians' ability to apply the ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders. Important limitations include not generalizing to all clinicians and acknowledging that results may be different in direct clinical interactions vs written case vignettes. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that clinicians appear capable of interpreting and implementing the diagnostic guidelines for paraphilic disorders in ICD-11. Keeley JW, Briken P, Evans SC, et al. Can Clinicians Use Dimensional Information to Make a Categorical Diagnosis of Paraphilic Disorders? An ICD-11 Field Study. J Sex Med 2021;18:1592-1606.

Taxonomy and utility in the diagnostic classification of mental disorders.

OBJECTIVE: One strategy for improving the clinical utility of mental health diagnostic systems is to better align them with how clinicians conceptualize psychopathology in practice. This approach was used in International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) development, but its underlying assumption-a link between taxonomic "fit" and clinical utility-remains untested. METHODS: Using data from global mental health clinician samples (combined N = 5404), we investigated the association between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder categories. RESULTS: The overall association between fit and utility was positive (r = 0.19) but statistically not different from zero (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06, 0.43) in this small sample (N = 39 ICD/DSM categories). However, a positive association became clear after correcting for outliers (r = 0.34 [0.05, 0.58] or higher). Further insights were apparent for specific diagnoses given their locations in the scatterplot. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a positive link between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder diagnoses, highlighting future research directions.

Accuracy of diagnostic classification and clinical utility assessment of ICD-11 compared to ICD-10 in 10 mental disorders: findings from a web-based field study.

In this web-based field study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of 10 selected mental disorders between the ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) and the ICD-10 CDDG using vignettes in a sample of 928 health professionals from all WHO regions. On average, the ICD-11 CDDG displayed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (71.9% for ICD-11, 53.2% for ICD-10), higher ease of use, better goodness of fit, higher clarity, and lower time required for diagnosis compared to the ICD-10 CDDG. The advantages of the ICD-11 CDDG were largely limited to new diagnoses in ICD-11. After limiting analyses to diagnoses existing in ICD-11 and ICD-10, the ICD-11 CDDG were only superior in ease of use. The ICD-11 CDDG were not inferior in diagnostic accuracy or clinical utility compared to the ICD-10 CDDG for any of the vignettes. Diagnostic accuracy was consistent across WHO regions and independent of participants' clinical experience. There were no differences between medical doctors and psychologists in diagnostic accuracy, but members of other health professions had greater difficulties in determining correct diagnoses based on the ICD-11 CDDG. In sum, there were no differences in diagnostic accuracy for diagnoses existing in ICD-10 and ICD-11, but the introduction of new diagnoses in ICD-11 has improved the diagnostic classification of some clinical presentations. The favourable clinical utility ratings of the ICD-11 CDDG give reason to expect a positive evaluation by health professionals in the implementation phase of ICD-11. Yet, training in ICD-11 is needed to further enhance the diagnostic accuracy.

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).

The classification of feeding and eating disorders in the ICD-11: results of a field study comparing proposed ICD-11 guidelines with existing ICD-10 guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is used globally by 194 WHO member nations. It is used for assigning clinical diagnoses, providing the framework for reporting public health data, and to inform the organization and reimbursement of health services. Guided by overarching principles of increasing clinical utility and global applicability, the 11th revision of the ICD proposes major changes that incorporate empirical advances since the previous revision in 1992. To test recommended changes in the Mental, Behavioral, and Neurodevelopmental Disorders chapter, multiple vignette-based case-controlled field studies have been conducted which examine clinicians' ability to accurately and consistently use the new guidelines and assess their overall clinical utility. This manuscript reports on the results from the study of the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for feeding and eating disorders (FEDs). METHOD: Participants were 2288 mental health professionals registered with WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network. The study was conducted in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, and Spanish. Clinicians were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines for FEDs to a pair of case vignettes designed to test specific clinical questions. Clinicians selected the diagnosis they thought was correct for each vignette, evaluated the presence of each essential feature of the selected diagnosis, and the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines. RESULTS: The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines significantly improved accuracy for all FEDs tested relative to ICD-10 and attained higher clinical utility ratings; similar results were obtained across all five languages. The inclusion of binge eating disorder and avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder reduced the use of residual diagnoses. Areas needing further refinement were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines consistently outperformed ICD-10 in distinguishing cases of eating disorders and showed global applicability and appropriate clinical utility. These results suggest that the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for FEDs will help increase accuracy of public health data, improve clinical diagnosis, and enhance health service organization and provision. This is the first time in the revision of the ICD that data from large-scale, empirical research examining proposed guidelines is completed in time to inform the final diagnostic guidelines.

Pathways linking clinician demographics to mental health diagnostic accuracy: An international perspective.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the impact of clinicians' demographics and response time on diagnostic accuracy. METHOD: We conducted mediation analyses on data from a WHO field study of the ICD-11 that required clinicians (N = 1,822, 44.3% female, 44.92 years old) to diagnose two case vignettes. RESULTS: Contradictory to decision-making theories, clinicians with more years of experience and slower response times had higher rates of diagnostic accuracy. In comparison to North American clinicians, clinicians in Asia who responded faster had lower accuracy rates, and clinicians in South America who responded slower had higher accuracy rates. Medical professionals with quicker response times had lower accuracy rates compared with psychologists and other clinical professionals. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that clinicians should consider how their clinical setting, level of experience, and response time influence the diagnostic process. Future research on diagnostic accuracy should consider additional mediating factors, such as cultural differences in response time.

[Web-based field studies on diagnostic classification and code assignment of mental disorders: comparison of ICD-11 and ICD-10]. / Internetbasierte Untersuchungen zur diagnostischen Klassifikation und Kodierung psychischer Störungen im Vergleich von ICD-11 und ICD-10.

The German Society for Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (DGPPN,) conducted a comprehensive field study (principal investigator WG) funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health in cooperation with 4 other German medical societies in the field of mental health (DGPM, DGPPR, DeGFS, DGfS) * to support WHO's development of the ICD-11 (Chapters 6 and 17). The objective of the web-based field study was to compare ICD-10 and ICD-11 (beta draft) for selected mental disorders, regarding consistency, accuracy and assessment of utility. The first study (TP1) focused on the diagnostic classification and the second (TP2) on assignment of diagnostic codes.In TP1, clinicians used either the ICD-10 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines (CDDG) version or a draft version of the ICD-11 CDDG to evaluate 10 case vignettes in a randomized study implemented through the WHO GCPN **. As hypothesized, consistency was in favor of the ICD-11 (p = .02; n = 319 expert participants) though there was some variability across the different diagnostic categories. In addition, time for diagnosis was shorter (p = .01) and clinicians' judgment of utility (ease of use; goodness of fit) was better for ICD-11 (p = .047 and p < .001 respectively).TP2 focused on consistency of diagnostic code assignment for 25 short case descriptions (including explicit diagnosis and additional clinical information) using both ICD-10 and ICD-11 in a randomized web-based field study which was run on the WHO ICD-FiT *** platform. Based on 531 code assignments by120 expert clinicians, consistency for ICD-11 was significantly lower compared to ICD-10 (71 % vs. 82 %, p < .001) contrary to study hypothesis, and time required was significantly higher for ICD-11 (p < .001). Nevertheless, utility assessments were in favor of ICD-11 (p < .005).In summary, in TP1, given vignettes with more complex clinical descriptions more similar to clinical cases, ICD-11 showed advantages in the consistency of correct diagnoses among clinicians, time required to reach a diagnosis, and clinicians' ratings of clinical utility. These results provide evidence for quality improvement of the diagnostic process due to the revision of the more complete diagnostic guidelines for ICD-11. In the coding task of TP2, coding by clinicians using the ICD-10 was more consistent and faster than coding using the ICD-11. This may be a result of the greater complexity for coding use of the ICD-11 (e. g., due to 'post-coordination'), as well as greater familiarity with the ICD-10 system (which German clinicians currently use) and lack of practice with the new ICD-11 codes and tools. In spite of this, users assessed the ICD-11 system as more useful than the ICD-10, in part also because of ICD-11's more systematic and comprehensive coding tools. In addition, time needed for coding improved with practice, indicating need for intense education and training initiatives when ICD-11 is adopted and implemented into clinical practice.

Evaluating clinicians' representations of schizoaffective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Schizoaffective disorder (SAD) has routinely exhibited poor diagnostic accuracy and reliability. In addition to phenomenological problems with the definition of SAD, the way in which clinicians represent the symptoms of the disorder could contribute to its poor diagnostic outcomes. PURPOSE: The present study sought to examine clinicians' representations of SAD compared to schizophrenia (SCZ), bipolar disorder with psychotic features (BiPD-PSY), and major depressive disorder with psychotic features (MDD-PSY). METHOD: Participants (N=113) were clinicians recruited via email as part of a larger study. They were randomly assigned to either select symptoms from a predetermined criteria list or freely list features of the disorders based on their own mental representations. RESULTS: Participants' conceptualizations of SAD were not entirely congruent with DSM-5 criteria; they conceptualized it as less psychotic than SCZ and less affective than the two mood disorder tasks. SAD was conceptualized as significantly more depressive than manic. CONCLUSIONS: This study's findings support the notion that clinicians' conceptualizations of SAD are not entirely congruent with its DSM-5 criteria, which could contribute to diagnostic difficulties.

Development of a Response Inconsistency Scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5.

The advent of a dimensional model of personality disorder included in DSM-5 has necessitated the development of a new measurement scheme, specifically a self-report questionnaire termed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012 ). However, there are many threats to the validity of a self-report measure, including response inconsistency. This study outlines the development of an inconsistency scale for the PID-5. Across both college student and clinical samples, the inconsistency scale was able to reliably differentiate real from random responding. Random responses led to increased scores on the PID-5 facets, indicating the importance of detecting inconsistent responding prior to test interpretation. Thus, this inconsistency scale could be of use to researchers and clinicians in detecting inconsistent responses to this new personality disorder measure.

Are Clinicians Better Than Lay Judges at Recalling Case Details? An Evaluation of Expert Memory.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the role of expertise in clinicians' memory for case details. Clinicians' diagnostic formulations may afford mechanisms for retaining and retrieving information. METHOD: Experts (N = 41; 47.6% males, 23.8% females; 28.6% did not report gender; age: mean [M] = 54.69) were members of the American Board of Professional Psychologists. Lay judges (N = 156; 25.4% males, 74.1% females; age: M = 18.85) were undergraduates enrolled in general psychology. Three vignettes were presented to each group, creating a 2 (group: expert, lay judge) x 3 (vignettes: simple, complex-coherent, complex-incoherent) mixed factorial design. Recall accuracy for vignette details was the dependent variable. RESULTS: Data analyses used multivariate analyses of variance to detect group differences among multiple continuous variables. Experts recalled more information than lay judges, overall. However, experts also exhibited more false memories for the complex-incoherent case because of their schema-based knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: This study supported clinical expertise as beneficial. Nonetheless, negative influences from experts' schema-based knowledge, as exhibited, could adversely affect clinical practices.

Interaction effects in comorbid psychopathology.

PURPOSE: Comorbidity in psychopathology is the norm. Despite some initial evidence, few studies have examined if the presence of comorbid conditions changes the expression of the pathology, either through increased severity of the syndrome(s) or by expanding to symptoms beyond the syndrome(s) (i.e., symptom overextension). The following report provides an illustration of interactive effects and overextension in comorbid pathology. METHOD: A large pool of patients from a university hospital were assessed using SCID-I/P interviews. Of these, 230 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder, social phobia, or both were included in the study. RESULTS: Symptoms not belonging to either index condition (major depressive disorder or social phobia) reliably overextended in comorbid cases (odds ratios between 2.82 and 15.75). CONCLUSIONS: Current research methodologies (e.g., structured interviews) do not allow for the examination of overextended symptoms. The authors make a call for future psychopathological research to search systematically for interactive effects by adopting more inclusive or flexible assessments.

The cycle of classification: DSM-I through DSM-5.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) was created in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association so that mental health professionals in the United States would have a common language to use when diagnosing individuals with mental disorders. Since the initial publication of the DSM, there have been five subsequent editions of this manual published (including the DSM-III-R). This review discusses the structural changes in the six editions and the research that influenced those changes. Research is classified into three domains: (a) issues related to the DSMs as measurement systems, (b) studies of clinicians and how clinicians form diagnoses, and (c) taxonomic issues involving the philosophy of science and metatheoretical ideas about how classification systems function. The review ends with recommendations about future efforts to revise the DSMs.

Examining accurate diagnosis of complex PTSD in ICD-11.

BACKGROUND: Complex posttraumatic stress disorder (complex PTSD), the most frequently suggested new category for inclusion by mental health professionals, has been included in the Eleventh Revision of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Research has yet to explore whether clinicians' recognition of the distinct complex PTSD symptoms predicts giving the correct diagnosis. The present study sought to determine if international mental health professionals were able to accurately diagnose complex PTSD and identify the shared PTSD features and three essential diagnostic features, specific to complex PTSD. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to view two vignettes and tasked with providing a diagnosis (or indicating that no diagnosis was warranted). Participants then answered a series of questions regarding the presence or absence of each of the essential diagnostic features specific to the diagnosis they provided. RESULTS: Clinicians who recognized the presence or absence of complex PTSD specific features were more likely to arrive at the correct diagnostic conclusion. Complex PTSD specific features were significant predictors while the shared PTSD features were not, indicating that attending to each of the specific symptoms was necessary for diagnostic accuracy of complex PTSD. LIMITATIONS: The use of written case vignettes including only adult patients and a non-representative sample of mental health professionals may limit the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support mental health professionals' ability to accurately identify specific features of complex PTSD. Future work should assess whether mental health providers can effectively identify symptoms of complex PTSD in a clinical setting.

Mental health professionals' use of the ICD-11 classification of impulse control disorders and behavioral addictions: An international field study.

Background and aims: The ICD-11 chapter on mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders contains new controversial diagnoses including compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD), intermittent explosive disorder (IED) and gaming disorder. Using a vignette-based methodology, this field study examined the ability of mental health professionals (MHPs) to apply the new ICD-11 diagnostic requirements for impulse control disorders, which include CSBD and IED, and disorders due to addictive behaviors, which include gaming disorder, compared to the previous ICD-10 guidelines. Methods: Across eleven comparisons, members of the WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network (N = 1,090) evaluated standardized case descriptions that were designed to test key differences between the diagnostic guidelines of ICD-11 and ICD-10. Results: The ICD-11 outperformed the ICD-10 in the accuracy of diagnosing impulse control disorders and behavioral addictions in most comparisons, while the ICD-10 was not superior in any. The superiority of the ICD-11 was particularly clear where new diagnoses had been added to the classification system or major revisions had been made. However, the ICD-11 outperformed the ICD-10 only in a minority of comparisons in which mental health professionals were asked to evaluate cases with non-pathological high involvement in rewarding behaviors. Discussion and Conclusions: Overall, the present study indicates that the ICD-11 diagnostic requirements represent an improvement over the ICD-10 guidelines. However, additional efforts, such as training programs for MHPs and possible refinements of diagnostic guidance, are needed to avoid over-diagnosis of people who are highly engaged in a repetitive and rewarding behavior but below the threshold for a disorder.

Measurement invariance of the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) for Nigerian and White American university students.

In a previous study, it was reported that the typically replicable factor structure of the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (PID-5) was noninvariant across samples of Black American and White American university students. The investigators of that study attributed this noninvariance across these two racial groups to Black American racialization, defined as Black individuals living in a predominantly non-Black society. In the current investigation, we examined further the effects of Black racialization by examining PID-5 factor structure invariance using a sample of nonracialized Black (Nigerian) university students (i.e., Black people living in a primarily Black society) and a sample of White American students. The factor structure of the PID-5 across the samples indicated overall configural invariance, suggesting that the same PID-5 facet traits, for the most part, load on the same factors for the nonracialized Black people and White Americans. This result is consistent with the view that Black racialization likely contributes to PID-5 factor structure noninvariance across White and Black Americans. There were some differences, however, between the Nigerian and White American students with respect to metric invariance and scalar invariance, suggesting the facet-to-factor loadings have different magnitudes of association across groups and that domain scale score elevations in Nigerian and White American students are not comparable; this was particularly prominent for the disinhibition domain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

A global clinicians' map of mental disorders to improve ICD-11: analysing meta-structure to enhance clinical utility.

Enhancing clinical utility is an emphasis of the World Health Organization's development of the mental and behavioural disorders chapter of the next International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Understanding how clinicians conceptualize the structure of mental disorders can enable a more clinically intuitive classification architecture that will help professionals find the categories they need more efficiently. This study examined clinicians' conceptualizations of the relationships among mental disorders and the dimensions they use in making these judgements. Psychiatrists and psychologists from 64 countries (n = 1,371), participating in English or Spanish, rated the similarity of mental and behavioural disorders presented as paired comparisons. Data were analysed by multidimensional scaling procedures (INDSCAL) and by analyses of consistency. Participants used three distinctive dimensions to evaluate the similarity among disorders: internalizing versus externalizing, developmental versus adult onset, and functional versus organic. Clinicians' conceptual map of mental disorders was rational and highly stable across profession, language, and country income level. The proposed ICD-11 structure is a moderately better fit with clinicians' conceptual model than either ICD-10 or DSM-IV. Clinician judgements can be used to improve clinical utility of the ICD-11 without sacrificing validity based on a scientific approach to enhancing a logically organized classification meta-structure.

Analysis of Mental Health Workforce: Implications for Social Work Practice and Profession.

This analysis was undertaken to better understand what factors may contribute to the relative strength or weakness of the clinical social work professional workforce. We explored the relationship between social work workforce numbers and social work licensure laws/policies. We also examined relationships between population factors and mental health workforce, including examining ratios of other mental health professions nationwide. Additionally, we explored mental health workforce strengths as it relates to state mental health needs and utilization of mental health services. Our findings were consistent with past research with respect to proportion of overall mental health workforce across mental health professionals. We did not find a direct relationship between licensure laws/policies and state social work workforce numbers. However, we found some relationships between the ratio of social workers to the population and state health rank, as well as the overall mental health workforce availability in a state. In addition, a relationship was found between ratio of social workers to the population and adults with mental illness not receiving care. Given the results, the authors posit that these findings could be used to promote the social work discipline in targeted ways, such as promotion of the discipline in states where mental health needs are underserved or in states with lower health rankings. Factors to consider at the macro and micro levels, as well as interprofessional issues in training and work, are discussed. We believe the findings from this analysis can be used to inform policy and promote the discipline of social work.

Evaluating the measurement invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in Black Americans and White Americans.

The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) assesses the five pathological personality trait domains that comprise the descriptive core of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). The PID-5 five-domain factor structure is aligned with the AMPD and is reported as replicable across samples in the U.S., in other countries, and in different languages. In this study, the PID-5 factor structure is examined in two distinct racial groups within the U.S.-White Americans (WA) and Black Americans (BA). Student participants from four universities in the U.S. (N = 1,834)-composed of groups of WA (n = 1,274) and BA (n = 560)-were proportionally parsed into derivation and replication subsamples. The "traditional" PID-5 five-factor structure emerged for the WA group in the derivation subsample and was subsequently confirmed in the WA replication subsample. In the BA group derivation subsample, a single-factor solution emerged, which was also confirmed in the BA replication sample. This single-factor solution in the BA group reflects large shared covariation across all pathological personality domains, suggesting an undifferentiated, broadly based level of demoralization represented by the item pool of the PID-5. We argue that this structure can be construed as mirroring a racialized and prejudice-based living experience for many BAs in a predominantly non-Black society. Based on the results with the samples employed in the present study, we conclude that the PID-5 is not an equivalent measure of pathological personality traits across Black Americans and White Americans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).