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.

The Incremental Utility of Criteria A and B of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders for Predicting DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorders.

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) includes two main criteria: moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and the presence of one or more pathological personality traits (Criterion B). The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental utility of Criteria A and B for predicting DSM-5 Section II personality disorders (PD). The sample (N = 317) consisted of three well-defined groups: non-clinical participants (n = 35), psychiatric patients with PD (n = 193), and without PD (n = 83). All were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I): Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Logistic regression analyses showed that the SCID-5-AMPD-I could predict the presence of PDs in general, and the three specific PDs that were investigated (i.e., Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs). The PID-5 domains enhanced prediction of the specific PDs, but not the presence of PDs in general, when entered in the second step. Our results support the AMPD model: Criterion A predicted the presence of DSM-5 Section II PDs in general, whereas measures of Criterion B incremented prediction of Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs.

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) in psychiatric practice and research.

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) has emerged out of the quantitative approach to psychiatric nosology. This approach identifies psychopathology constructs based on patterns of co-variation among signs and symptoms. The initial HiTOP model, which was published in 2017, is based on a large literature that spans decades of research. HiTOP is a living model that undergoes revision as new data become available. Here we discuss advantages and practical considerations of using this system in psychiatric practice and research. We especially highlight limitations of HiTOP and ongoing efforts to address them. We describe differences and similarities between HiTOP and existing diagnostic systems. Next, we review the types of evidence that informed development of HiTOP, including populations in which it has been studied and data on its validity. The paper also describes how HiTOP can facilitate research on genetic and environmental causes of psychopathology as well as the search for neurobiologic mechanisms and novel treatments. Furthermore, we consider implications for public health programs and prevention of mental disorders. We also review data on clinical utility and illustrate clinical application of HiTOP. Importantly, the model is based on measures and practices that are already used widely in clinical settings. HiTOP offers a way to organize and formalize these techniques. This model already can contribute to progress in psychiatry and complement traditional nosologies. Moreover, HiTOP seeks to facilitate research on linkages between phenotypes and biological processes, which may enable construction of a system that encompasses both biomarkers and precise clinical description.

Interrater Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module i: Level of Personality Functioning Scale.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) presents an alternative model for personality disorders in which severity of personality pathology is evaluated by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The Structured Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, Module I (SCID-5-AMPD I) is a new tool for LPFS assessment, but its interrater reliability (IRR) has not yet been tested. Here we examined the reliability of the Norwegian translation of the SCID-5-AMPD I, applying two different designs: IRR assessment based on ratings of 17 video-recorded SCID-5-AMPD I interviews by five raters; and test-retest IRR based on interviews of 33 patients administered by two different raters within a short interval. For the video-based investigation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged from .77 to .94 for subdomains, .89 to .95 for domains, and .96 for total LPFS. For the test-retest investigation, ICC ranged from .24 to .72 for subdomains, .59 to .90 for domains, and .75 for total LPFS. The test-retest study revealed questionable reliability estimates for some subdomains. However, overall the level of personality functioning was measured with a sufficient degree of IRR when assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD I.

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.

Personality disorders and the persistence of anxiety disorders in a nationally representative sample.

BACKGROUND: Among individuals with anxiety disorders, comorbid personality disorders (PDs) increase cross-sectional symptom severity and decrease functioning. Little is known, however, about how PDs influence the course of anxiety disorders over time. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of PDs on the persistence of four anxiety disorders in a nationally representative sample in the United States. METHODS: Two waves of data were collected on 34,653 participants, 3 years apart. At both waves, participants were evaluated for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social and specific phobias, and panic disorder. Predictors of persistence included all DSM-IV PDs. Control variables included demographics, comorbid PDs, age at onset of the anxiety disorder, number of prior episodes, duration of the current episode, treatment history, and cardinal symptoms of exclusionary diagnoses for each anxiety disorder. RESULTS: Any PD, two or more PDs, borderline PD, schizotypal PD, mean number of PD criteria met, and mean number of PDs diagnosed predicted the persistence of all four anxiety disorders. Narcissistic PD predicted persistence of GAD and panic disorder. Schizoid and avoidant PDs also predicted persistence of GAD. Finally, avoidant PD predicted persistence of social phobia. Particular patterns of cross-cluster PD comorbidity were strong predictors of the persistence of individual anxiety disorders as well. CONCLUSIONS: In this national sample, a variety of PDs robustly predicted the persistence of anxiety disorders over 3 years, consistent with the results of recent prospective clinical studies. Personality psychopathology should be assessed and addressed in treatment for all patients with anxiety disorders.

Personality disorder classification: stuck in neutral, how to move forward?

An "Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders" was published in Sect. III of DSM-5, while the identical categories and criteria from DSM-IV for the personality disorders (PDs) are in Sect. II. Given strong shifts from categorical diagnoses toward dimensional representations in psychiatry, how did the PDs end up "stuck in neutral," with the flawed DSM-IV model perpetuated? This article reviews factors that influenced the development of the new model and data to encourage and facilitate its use by clinicians. These include recognizing 1) a dimensional structure for psychopathology for which personality may be foundational; 2) a consensus on the structure of normal and abnormal personality; 3) the clinical significance of personality; 4) PD-specific severity required to establish disorder; 5) disruption, discontinuity, and perceived clinical utility of the Alternative Model may not be problems; and 6) a way forward involving collaborative research on neurobiological and psychosocial processes, treatment planning, and outcomes.

Assessing DSM-5 level of personality functioning from videotaped clinical interviews: a pilot study with untrained and clinically inexperienced students.

Several authors have raised the concern that the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) is relatively complex and theory laden, and thus might put high requirements on raters. We addressed this concern by having 22 untrained and clinically inexperienced students assess the personality functioning of 10 female psychotherapy inpatients from videotaped clinical interviews, using a multi-item version of the LPFS. Individual raters' LPFS total scores showed acceptable interrater reliability, and were significantly associated with 2 distinct expert-rated measures of the severity of personality pathology. These findings suggest that, contrary to the previously mentioned concerns, successfully applying the LPFS to clinical cases might require neither extensive clinical experience nor training.

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.

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.