The (cost-)effectiveness of early intervention (MBT-early) versus standard protocolized treatment (CBT) for emerging borderline personality disorder in adolescents (the EARLY study): a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical guidelines prioritize the treatment of depression and anxiety in young persons, there is accumulating evidence that the presence of symptoms of borderline personality disorder (BPD) is associated with the limited effectiveness of these standard treatments. These findings stress the need for interventions addressing early-stage BPD in young people with presenting symptoms of anxiety and depressive disorders. The aim of this study is to investigate the (cost-)effectiveness of an early intervention programme for BPD (MBT-early) compared to first-choice psychological treatment for depression and anxiety according to Dutch treatment guidelines (CBT), in adolescents with either depression, anxiety, or both, in combination with early-stage BPD. METHODS: This study is a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. A total of 132 adolescents, presenting with either depression, anxiety, or both and significant BPD features will be randomized to either MBT-early or CBT. The severity of BPD, symptoms of depression and anxiety, personality, social and academic functioning, and quality of life will be assessed at baseline, end of treatment, and at 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up, along with medical costs and costs of productivity losses for cost-effectiveness analyses. DISCUSSION: This study will provide an empirical evaluation of the potential surplus value of early intervention in young people for whom treatment oriented at common mental disorders like anxiety and depression may be insufficient given their underlying personality problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL9569. Registered on June 15, 2021.

Comparing the clinical utility of the alternative model for personality disorders to the Section II personality disorder model: A randomized controlled trial.

The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) has been extensively studied over the past decade, but to date there is no direct comparison of the clinical utility of the AMPD model relative to the Section II personality disorder (PD) model in an ecologically valid design. The current study examined the clinical utility of an AMPD-informed assessment procedure and Section II PD assessment procedure as assessed by both patients and clinicians in a randomized controlled trial. A sample of 119 patients were randomly assigned to either an AMPD or a Section II PD assessment procedure. At the end of the assessment, patients filled out questionnaires pertaining to clinical utility, satisfaction, motivation for treatment, and general experience of the assessment. Clinicians who subsequently started treatment with these patients also completed two clinical utility questionnaires. There were no significant differences between the AMPD and Section II PD assessment procedure on patients' reported clinical utility, motivation for treatment, satisfaction, and general experience of the assessment nor were there significant differences between the models on clinician reported clinical utility. Explorative analyses revealed that, for patients, a positive relationship with the assessor was predictive of experienced utility. This study shows no superiority of the AMPD in terms of clinical utility but suggests that the alliance with the assessor is a particularly salient factor in clinical utility. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.

The present study investigated the predictive validity of Criterion A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) compared to the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) model in predicting patient outcomes 1 year after initial assessment, in a hetero-method longitudinal design. A clinical sample of 84 participants were administered both traditional Section II and AMPD interviews by two independent interviewers. One year after assessment, disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) and symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory) were assessed. The Section II PD model did not predict disability (R² = .01) nor symptom severity (R² = .03). The AMPD model, on the other hand, predicted both disability (R² = .23) and symptom severity (R² = .29) 1-year postinitial assessment. Both Criterion A and B were significant predictors, but when jointly combined only Criterion A remained significantly predictive of both disability and symptom severity while Criterion B did not. Criterion A thus appears to capture core vulnerabilities of personality-disordered patients that are related to future functioning and symptom severity. Implications for clinical practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The development and psychometric evaluation of the Questionnaire Epistemic Trust (QET): A self-report assessment of epistemic trust.

Epistemic trust (ET) refers to the predisposition to trust information as authentic, trustworthy and relevant to the self. Epistemic distrust - resulting from early adversity - may interfere with openness to social learning within the therapeutic encounter, reducing the ability to benefit from treatment. The self-report Questionnaire Epistemic Trust (QET) is a newly developed instrument that aims to assess ET. This study presents the first results on the psychometric properties of the QET in both a community and a clinical sample. Our findings indicate that the QET is composed of four meaningful subscales with good to excellent internal consistency. The QET shows relevant associations with related constructs like personality functioning, symptom distress and quality of life. QET scores clearly distinguish between a clinical and community sample and are associated with the quality of the therapeutic alliance. The QET provides a promising, brief and user-friendly instrument that could be used for a range of clinical and research purposes. Future studies with larger samples are needed to strengthen construct validity and to investigate the value of the QET to predict differential treatment responses or to study mechanisms of change.

Isn't criterion A rather than B the language of psychotherapy?: Comment on Sauer-Zavala et al. (2022).

Comments on the article by S. Sauer-Zavala et al. (see record 2022-23735-001), which presents BPD-Compass as a new intervention for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Sauer-Zavala et al. have written a stimulating article that challenges fixed beliefs about the treatment of personality disorders and offers the first attempt to design a treatment according to the heuristic framework of the alternative model of personality disorders. This article presents several elements of the direction our field is developing to but may have underrated the importance of Criterion A in designing good-quality generic PD treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The diagnosis that should speak its name: why it is ethically right to diagnose and treat personality disorder during adolescence.

Although national guidelines explicitly state that personality disorder can be diagnosed and treated in young people aged 12 to 18 years (adolescents), most clinicians remain hesitant. This creates a gap between science and practice, which we argue is largely motivated by moral reasons and, therefore, is best challenged by ethical arguments. We provide seven arguments in support of the notion that it is ethically right to diagnose and treat personality disorder when it occurs in adolescents. Central to these arguments is the scientific evidence that features of personality disorder are among the best predictors of a complex cluster of psychopathology leading to impairments in many areas of current and future mental, social and vocational functioning. We argue that intervention during adolescence and young adulthood is not only humane, but also critical for efforts to avert the longstanding psychosocial and health problems that seem refractory to treatment in adults with personality disorder. Moreover, we argue that regular services are often inadequately equipped to meet the needs of young people with personality disorder and that the common 'stepped-care' approach should be replaced by a 'staged-care' approach. Finally, we argue that early detection and intervention might have anti-stigmatizing effects, similar to other areas of healthcare in which stigmatizing labels have changed meaning when the conditions to which they refer have become more amenable to treatment.

Normative data for the LPFS-BF 2.0 derived from the Danish general population and relationship with psychosocial impairment.

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 is a frequently used self-report inventory that may be used to screen for self- and interpersonal dysfunction according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders. Nevertheless, reliable norms and cut-off scores to aid interpretation and clinical decision making are still lacking. The LPFS-BF and relevant impairment measures were administered to a sociodemographically stratisfied sample of 2,002 adults from the general Danish population of whom 713 individuals eventually delivered data for inclusion in the present study. The unidimensionality of the LPFS-BF scores was established using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Item-Response Theory (IRT) analysis indicated satisfactory item functioning for all 12 items and suggested normative observed score thresholds at different latent severity levels. Meaningful associations were found between the LPFS-BF norm-based cut-off scores, quality of life, and social and occupational functioning. This study presented the first normative data for LPFS-BF, which specifically applies to Denmark but likely also other socioeconomically comparable Nordic and Western societies. These results allow for interpretation of LPFS-BF scores and clinical decision-making. Future research should corroborate these findings and compare them to scores obtained in other general population samples.

Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: Validity and reliability of the Polish adaptation. / Krótka Skala Poziomu Funkcjonowania Osobowosci ­ wersja 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0): Trafnosc i rzetelnosc polskiej adaptacji.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined psychometric properties of the Polish adaptation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) measuring features corresponding to self - and interpersonal impairment of personality functioning as defined in the diagnostic guidelines for Personality Disorder in the DSM-5 Section III. METHODS: The study involved a non-clinical sample of N = 242 adults (52.9% female; Mage = 30.63 years, SDage = 11.81 years). To evaluate the criterion validity, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), Agency-Communion-Inventory (AC-IN), and Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF) were administered. RESULTS: The LPFS-BF 2.0 yielded two reliable latent components that correspond to an interpretation of self - and interpersonal functioning and showed relevant associations with a personality disorder severity index, maladaptive personality traits, well-being, and personality constructs of agency and communion. The LPFS-BF 2.0 also demonstrated incremental validity over and above all the PID-5 pathological traits with respect to global well-being as an outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The Polish adaptation of the LPFS-BF 2.0 is a psychometrically and conceptually sound measure to assess features corresponding to self and interpersonal impairment of personality functioning as defined in the DSM-5 Section III. However, findings warrant replication in clinical populations.

Brazilian Version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: Evidence of Reliability and Validity / Versão Brasileira da Escala de Nível de Funcionamento da Personalidade - Forma Breve - 2.0: Evidência de Fidedignidade e Validade

Abstract The goal of this research was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form - 2.0 (LPFS-BF-2.0) in Brazilian samples. Therefore, two samples were used in this study, one with 415 and the other with 1,011 Brazilians. Participants completed the Brazilian version of the LPFS-BF-2.0 and other measures of common mental disorder symptoms, suicide risk, the severity of personality pathology, and pathological personality traits. The results indicated that the two-factor model (including self-functioning and interpersonal functioning domains) fits the Brazilian samples better than a one-factor model. The LPFS-BF-2.0 scales indicated adequate reliability coefficients and evidence of convergent validity.

Resumo O objetivo desta pesquisa foi investigar as propriedades psicométricas da Escala de Nível de Funcionamento da Personalidade - Forma Breve - 2.0 (LPFS-BF-2.0) em amostras brasileiras. Assim, duas amostras foram utilizadas, uma com 415 e outra com 1.011 brasileiros. Os participantes responderam a versão brasileira da LPFS-BF-2.0 e outras medidas de sintomas de transtornos mentais comuns, de risco de suicídio, de severidade da patologia da personalidade e de traços patológicos da personalidade. Os resultados indicaram que o modelo de dois fatores (incluindo os fatores de funcionamento do self e interpessoal) ajustou melhor às amostras de brasileiros do que o modelo de um fator. As escalas da LPFSP-BF-2.0 indicaram adequados coeficientes de fidedignidade e evidência de validade convergente.

Psychometric evaluation of the Estonian version of the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1).

BACKGROUND: The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders introduced a dimensional perspective on personality disorders. The model assesses functioning in four domains: Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy, and Intimacy. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) in Estonian. METHOD: The sample consists of 131 participants: 58 from the general population and 73 from a mixed clinical sample that is further divided into a mood and anxiety disorder sample and personality disorder sample. All participants completed the STiP-5.1 interview and the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF 2.0). RESULTS: The Estonian STiP-5.1 interview has good internal consistency (McDonald's ω between .94-.98) and high convergent validity (correlations with LPFS-BF 2.0 above .7). Interview scores successfully differentiated the general population from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen's d = 2.68), as well as patients with personality disorder from those without (Cohen's d = 1.76). The LPFS-BF 2.0 total score differentiates the general population sample from the mixed clinical sample (Cohen's d = 1.99) but not the personality disorder sample from other clinical sample participants. CONCLUSIONS: The properties of the Estonian STiP-5.1 replicate those of other languages, and empirically support a unified personality functioning dimension that can be meaningfully thought of as reflecting impairments in self and interpersonal functioning. Findings of this study will be discussed in the light of the ongoing debate on the dimensionality of personality pathology and the use of self-report versus interview measures for assessing personality pathology.

Personality functioning and the pathogenic effect of childhood maltreatment in a high-risk sample.

BACKGROUND: While the psychopathological sequalae of childhood maltreatment are widely acknowledged, less is known about the underlying pathways by which childhood maltreatment might lead to an increased risk for mental health problems. Recent studies indicated that impaired personality functioning might mediate this relationship. The aim of the present paper was to extend the current literature by investigating the mediating effect of impaired personality functioning between different types of childhood maltreatment and self-reported mental health problems in a high-risk sample. METHODS: Overall, 173 young adults (mean age = of 26.61 years; SD = 3.27) with a history of residential child welfare and juvenile justice placements in Switzerland were included in the current study. The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ-SF), Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) and the self-report questionnaires of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment scales (ASEBA) were used. Mediation analyses were conducted through structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Overall, 76.3% (N = 132) participants indicated at least one type of childhood maltreatment, with emotional neglect being most commonly reported (60.7%). A total of 30.6% (N = 53) participants self-reported mental health problems. Emotional abuse (r = 0.34; p < .001) and neglect (r = 0.28; p < .001) were found to be most strongly associated with mental health problems. In addition, impaired personality functioning was fond to be a significant mediator for overall childhood maltreatment (ß = 0.089; p = 0.008) and emotional neglect (ß = 0.077; p = 0.016). Finally, impaired self-functioning was found to be a significant mediator when both self-functioning and interpersonal functioning were included as potential mediators in the relationship between overall childhood maltreatment (ß1 = 0.177, p1 = 0.007) and emotional neglect (ß1 = 0.173, p1 = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Emotional neglect may be particularly important in the context of childhood maltreatment, personality functioning, and mental health problems and, therefore, should not be overlooked next to the more "obvious" forms of childhood maltreatment. Combining interventions designed for personality functioning with trauma-informed practices in standard mental health services might counteract the psychopathological outcomes of maltreated children and adolescents.

Multinational evaluation of the measurement invariance of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-brief form 2.0: Comparison of student and community samples across seven countries.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth Edition's (DSM-5) Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) was introduced as a dimensional rating of impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning, and the LPFS-Brief Form (LPFS-BF) was the first published corresponding self-report. The updated LPFS-BF 2.0 has been translated into several languages and international research supports many of the instrument's psychometric properties; however, its measurement invariance has only been evaluated across a few countries. This study expands previous studies as an introductory step in a global evaluation of the LPFS-BF 2.0s measurement invariance. Archival data (N = 5,618, 57% female) from seven countries (Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Italy, United Arab Emirates, United States of America) were used for this study. Participants were recruited from both community (n = 4,677) and student (n = 941) populations. After confirming adequate model fit separately in the community and student samples, we evaluated a series of increasingly stringent model comparisons to test three aspects of measurement invariance (configural, metric, scalar) and then examined latent mean differences across countries. Full scalar invariance was supported in the community sample and partial scalar invariance was supported in the student sample. Evaluation of latent mean differences revealed multiple significant differences. Overall, the LPFS-BF 2.0 appears to assess self- and interpersonal functioning impairment similarly across the included countries. Findings are discussed through the lenses of the cultures from which participants were recruited, as well as in the context of alternative explanations. Limitations, plans for future research, and implications for both research and clinical practice are offered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: a European perspective on challenges and opportunities.

The 11th revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes a fundamentally new approach to Personality Disorders (PD). ICD-11 is expected to be implemented first in European countries before other WHO member states. The present paper provides an overview of this new ICD-11 model including PD severity classification, trait domain specifiers, and the additional borderline pattern specifier. We discuss the perceived challenges and opportunities of using the ICD-11 approach with particular focus on its continuity and discontinuity with familiar PD categories such as avoidant PD and narcissistic PD. The advent of the ICD-11 PD classification involves major changes for health care workers, researchers, administrators, and service providers as well as patients and families involved. The anticipated challenges and opportunities are put forward in terms of specific unanswered questions. It is our hope that these questions will stimulate further research and discussion among researchers and clinicians in the coming years.

Defining the Concept and Clinical Features of Epistemic Trust: A Delphi study.

ABSTRACT: Early identification of "patients at risk" for not completing regular treatment or not benefitting (sufficiently) from treatment might be among the most cost-effective strategies in mental health care. The recently introduced concept of epistemic trust (ET) may have the potential value to predict patients at risk and therefore act as a marker of treatment outcome. We argue that ET may be the final common pathway through which aversive relational experiences in the past result in interpersonal dysfunctioning, which in turn result in dysfunctional therapeutic relationships, rendering it difficult for patients to trust whatever is offered to learn in therapy. Hence, the concept of ET can play an essential role in personalized medicine, allowing for a more tailored treatment assignment to specific patients' characteristics, which may improve treatment outcomes. In this brief report, we define the clinical features of ET by describing its core domains based on consensus of expert opinion on the concept. The response rate was high, and there was a high level of agreement across experts, demonstrating a strong consensus between experts on the definition and clinical features of ET and mistrust and its significance to the understanding of personality disorders.By means of having a clear definition of the clinical features of ET, we hope to make it accessible for assessment.

Changes in the classification of personality disorders: Comparing the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder model to the alternative model for personality disorders using structured clinical interviews.

The current study examined the continuity of personality disorder (PD) diagnoses from Section II to Section III (alternative model for personality disorders [AMPD]) when using structured interviews. We investigated the continuity both in terms of stability of prevalence rates and in terms of convergent validity. A clinical sample of 189 participants were concurrently administered both Section II PD and AMPD interviews for diagnosing PD by 2 independent interviewers. Stability of prevalence between the models for specific PD diagnoses was generally supported. A higher prevalence of trait-specified PD in the AMPD model resulted in higher prevalence of PD in general when using the AMPD model compared with the Section II PD model. Correlations between matching criterion counts according to both models were generally high. Convergence between the Section II PD and AMPD model categorical diagnoses was adequate for the most frequently diagnosed and studied PDs (i.e., avoidant-, borderline-, and antisocial PD), but lower than previously found, likely due to the stringent test-retest design used in this study. Convergence between the models for narcissistic and obsessive-compulsive PD was low and could not be estimated for schizotypal PD. Future studies should investigate which of both models may prove to be most valid in terms of predicting current and future impairments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Client and Clinical Utility of the Assessment of Personality Disorders.

ABSTRACT: Clinical utility and client utility are important desirable properties when developing and evaluating a new classification system for mental disorders. This study reports on four focus groups followed up by a Delphi study among clinicians working with clients with personality disorders (PD) and clients with PD themselves to harness both user groups' perspectives on the utility of PD diagnosis. Our findings show that the client and clinician views of the concept of utility were closely aligned and include aspects of transparency of communication and the ability of an assessment to enhance hope, curiosity, motivation, and insight into a client's personality patterns. Unique to clinicians' appraisal was the ability of an assessment to capture both vulnerabilities and resilience of clients and to give information about the prognosis in treatment. Unique to clients' appraisal was the ability of an assessment to be destigmatizing and collaborative. These findings may serve to expand our definition and measurement of clinical utility, in that collaborative and nonstigmatizing procedures likely promote client acceptability. To capture both aspects, we offer two preliminary questionnaires (i.e., item sets open to further empirical testing) based on the data derived from the Delphi procedure.

Resilient, undercontrolled, and overcontrolled personality types based upon DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits.

We explored the clinical relevance of resilient, overcontrolled and undercontrolled personality types based upon DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits. We examined if these prototypes could be differentiated in terms of personality functioning, and internalizing and externalizing pathology. Self-report questionnaires and structured interviews were administered to 192 adult patients referred to a mental health care center specialized in assessment and treatment of personality disorders. Through cluster analysis we identified a resilient type with no elevation on maladaptive trait domains and showing better personality functioning and less pathology than the overcontrolled and undercontrolled types. Furthermore, the overcontrolled type had elevated Negative Affectivity and a higher prevalence of mood disorders, whereas the undercontrolled type had elevations on all maladaptive traits, with the exception of Disinhibition, and higher rates of narcissistic and borderline personality disorders. Given the differences in psychopathology between the types, identifying these types may inform treatment focus. Also, in line with a stepped care model, compared to overcontrollers, resilient types may need less intensive treatment and undercontrollers may need more intensive treatment.

Assessment of ICD-11 Personality Disorder Severity in Forensic Patients Using the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1): Preliminary Findings.

In forensic settings, several challenges may affect reliability of assessment of personality pathology, specifically when based upon self-report. This study investigates the Semi-Structured Interview for DSM-5 Personality Functioning (STiP-5.1) to assess level of severity of personality functioning in incarcerated patients. Thirty inpatients of three forensic psychiatric facilities completed the STiP 5.1 and additionally completed self-report questionnaires assessing symptom severity, personality functioning and traits. Staff members completed informant versions of personality functioning questionnaires. Previously assessed community (N = 18) and clinical samples (N = 80) were used as a reference. Interrater reliability and internal consistency of the STiP 5.1 were good. As expected, no associations were found between self-report and expert-ratings (STiP 5.1) of personality functioning. Remarkably, no associations were found between informant rated personality functioning and the STiP 5.1. This study confirms the discrepancies between self-report and expert-ratings in forensic settings and identifies the need to design and test assessment instruments within this context instead of generalizing findings obtained in regular mental health care samples. The STiP-5.1 may be a candidate for use in forensic samples, particularly to guide treatment planning and individual patient policy, although it remains unclear what specific information it offers above and beyond self-report and informant-report.

Semi-structured interview for personality functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1): Psychometric evaluation of the Czech version.

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders introduced a dimensional perspective on personality disorders and their assessment by measuring personality functioning in the following domains: Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy, and Intimacy. This study provides a replication of the psychometric evaluation of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) within a mixed clinical sample and a community sample. The sample consisted of 188 adults: 86 participants from the general population and 102 people from a mixed clinical sample. All participants completed the STiP-5.1 and Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF 2.0). Results showed good internal consistency (McDonald's ω = 0.89-0.94) and promising convergent validity (correlations with LPFS-BF 2.0 above 0.6) of the STiP-5.1. Its scores differentiated participants within the community sample from those in the mixed clinical sample with large effect sizes (rrb = 0.77-0.88). Moreover, the impairment in personality functioning was more pronounced in people with personality disorders than in other psychiatric disorders (medium effect size, rrb = 0.46-0.57), supporting the notion of a continuum of personality functioning impairment. The STiP-5.1 therefore offers an instrument with satisfactory psychometric properties for the assessment of personality functioning both for research and clinical practice.

[The German Version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF): Latent Structure, Convergent Validity and Norm Values in the General Population]. / Die deutsche Version der Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF): Faktorenstruktur, konvergente Validität und Normwerte in der Allgemeinbevölkerung.

The Alternative DSM-5 Model of Personality Disorders describes the level of personality functioning, defined by impairments in self functioning (self pathology) and problems in interpersonal functioning (interpersonal pathology), as the core feature of all personality disorders. A brief self-report measure to assess the level of personality functioning, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF) comprising 12 items, was developed by a Dutch work group. The present study aimed at a first and comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the German version of the LPFS-BF in a large and representative general population sample (n=2470) as well as a non-clinical sample (n=849), particularly focusing on the factor structure, convergent validity and norm values. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the theoretically assumed and for the original version empirically confirmed two-factor solution was replicated in both samples with acceptable fit. Reliability of the total scale as well as both subscales (defined by the internal consistency) was high in both samples (McDonalds ω ≥0.83). Satisfactory convergent validity was indicated by high correlations of the German version of the LPFS-BF with other measures assessing personality dysfunction (r ≥0.72). The association with current psychological distress was similarly high. In the general population sample, the mean norm value (T50) of the total scale was 15 and T70 was 33. Although psychometric evaluations of the German LPFS-BF in patients with mental disorders, particularly those with personality disorders, have not yet been performed, this measure can be recommended as it provides a quick and user-friendly impression of the severity of personality functioning in the domains of self and interpersonal pathology.