Impairments in Cognitive and Emotional Empathy as Markers of General versus Specific Personality Pathology.

INTRODUCTION: The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - 5th edition (DSM-5) considers impairments in empathy a basic feature of personality disorders (PDs). In contrast, the AMPD pathological personality trait model and the categorical DSM-5 Section II PD model associate deficits in empathy to specific forms of personality pathology. The present study investigated to what extent impairments in cognitive and emotional empathy are markers of general versus specific personality pathology. METHODS: In a clinical sample (n = 119), the Multifaceted Empathy Test was used to assess cognitive empathy, emotional empathy for positive emotions, and emotional empathy for negative emotions. Personality functioning, pathological personality traits, and DSM-5 Section II PDs were assessed via interviews and self-reports. Confirmatory factor analyses were applied to associate the three empathy facets with the three personality pathology approaches, each modeled with general personality pathology (common factor) and specific personality pathology (residuals of indicators). RESULTS: Impairments in cognitive empathy and emotional empathy for positive emotions were significantly correlated with general personality pathology. All three empathy facets were also correlated to specific personality pathology when controlling for general personality pathology, respectively. Impairments in cognitive empathy were incrementally associated with identity and empathy (personality functioning), psychoticism (pathological personality traits), and paranoid and dependent PD (DSM-5 Section II PDs). Deficits in emotional empathy for positive emotions were incrementally associated with self-direction and intimacy (personality functioning) and detachment (pathological personality traits). Impairments in emotional empathy for negative emotions were incrementally associated with antagonism (pathological personality traits) and antisocial PD (DSM-5 Section II PDs). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that impairments in cognitive empathy and emotional empathy for positive emotions, but not for negative emotions, are markers of general personality pathology, while deficits in the three empathy facets are also markers for specific personality pathology.

Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the German Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (SIFS).

The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (SIFS) is a 24-item self-report questionnaire assessing personality functioning according to the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. We evaluated the German SIFS version in a total sample of 886 participants from Germany and Switzerland. Its factor structure was investigated with confirmatory factor analysis comparing bifactor models with two specific factors (self- and interpersonal functioning) and four specific factors (identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy). The SIFS sum and domain scores were tested for reliability and convergent validity with self-report questionnaires and interviews for personality functioning, -organization, -traits, -disorder categories, and well-being. None of the bifactor models yielded good model fit, even after excluding two items with low factor loadings and including a method factor for reverse-keyed items. Based on a shortened 22-item SIFS version, models suggested that the g-factor explained 52.9-59.6% of the common variance and that the SIFS sum score measured the g-factor with a reliability of .68-.81. Even though the SIFS sum score showed large test-retest reliability and correlated strongly with well-established self-report questionnaires and interviews, the lack of structural validity appears to be a serious disadvantage of the SIFS compared to existing self-reports questionnaires of personality functioning.

Availability and quality of assessment instruments on patient-centredness in older adults with multimorbidity: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-centredness (PC) is central to the health care of older adults with multimorbidity, but knowledge about the psychometric quality of instruments measuring it in this group is scarce. Based on an integrative model of PC, we aimed to identify assessment instruments of PC for this particular group and evaluate their psychometric properties. METHODS: We systematically searched six electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and PSYNDEX), initially covering research published up to 2018 and updated later to include work up to July 2022. In evaluating the psychometric properties of identified instruments, we followed the COSMIN methodology. RESULTS: We identified 12 studies reporting on 10 instruments measuring PC in the health care of older adults with multimorbidity. For these instruments, structural validity and internal consistency were the psychometric properties reported most often. Based on the COSMIN criteria, eight instruments received favourable ratings for internal consistency with respect to methodological quality ('very good'), measurement property ('sufficient') and overall quality of evidence ('moderate'). Ratings of structural validity varied more largely, with three to seven instruments showing at least adequate methodological quality, sufficient structural validity or moderate quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to comparable previous reviews, evidence on the psychometric properties of instruments assessing PC in the health care of older adults with multimorbidity was rather limited. Informed by comprehensive models of PC, further research should aim at developing measures of PC that stand out on a broader range of psychometric properties.

Reliability, structure, and validity of module I (personality functioning) of the Structured Clinical Interview for the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders (SCID-5-AMPD-I).

According to the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), a moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning is the essential criterion for a personality disorder diagnosis. Personality functioning is operationalized in the Level of Personality Functioning Scale via 4 domains (identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy) and 2 higher order dimensions (self and interpersonal functioning). The current study examined the reliability (interrater, test-retest), structure, and validity (convergent, discriminant, and incremental) of the Structured Clinical Interview for the AMPD-Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I). A clinical sample (n = 121) completed the SCID-5-AMPD-I, along with an interview for DSM-5 Section II personality disorders and self-reports for personality pathology (personality functioning, personality organization, personality structure, and pathological personality traits) and other forms of psychopathology (depression, anxiety, somatization, and general disability). Interrater and test-retest reliability was excellent for overall personality functioning, the higher order dimensions, and the domains, except for the empathy domain in the test-retest condition. Factor analyses suggest that personality functioning is an essentially unidimensional construct. Personality functioning demonstrated high convergence with other forms of personality pathology and showed good discriminant validity in relation to depression, anxiety, and somatization but not in relation to the broader construct of general disability. Personality functioning (Criterion A) showed incremental validity over pathological personality traits (Criterion B) in predicting interview-assessed DSM-5 Section II personality disorders but not in predicting self-reported personality and general psychopathology. The present study suggests that the SCID-5-AMPD-I is a viable measure for personality functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Evidence-based individual psychotherapy for complex posttraumatic stress disorder and at-risk groups for complex traumatization: A meta-review.

BACKGROUND: The current meta-review of meta-analyses on psychotherapy research for complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) and samples at risk of complex traumatization has three aims: first, to provide an overview of efficacy of individual psychotherapies; second, to compare the quality of the meta-analyses; and third, to assess statistical power. METHODS: The literature search was conducted until August 2020. Meta-analyses providing individual treatment effect estimates focusing on CPTSD or samples at risk of complex traumatization (i.e., victims of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), war or torture, refugees, and veterans with PTSD) were eligible for inclusion. The effect sizes were classified according to Cohen as small, medium, or large. The "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR) was applied to assess the quality of the meta-analyses, and power was assessed post-hoc. RESULTS: Twenty-four meta-analyses were suitable for inclusion. The efficacy of the interventions varied (g = -0.04 (CI -0.39; 0.48), controlled, to d = 2.73 (1.69; 3.76), uncontrolled). Overall, 16 effect estimates were large. On average, the quality of the meta-analyses was good (average AMSTAR total score 7.71 points (range 3-11). Considering quality assessments and power together, nine meta-analyses were evaluated as high quality. LIMITATIONS: No meta-analysis for CPTSD was eligible and the number of individuals with complex traumatization was not directly assessed in the at-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: For at-risk groups for complex traumatization, on average, good-quality empirical evidence exists. Given the limited research on CPTSD, future studies are needed to further investigate the efficacy of interventions.

Patient-Centeredness in Older Adults With Multimorbidity: Results of an Online Expert Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Older adults suffering from multimorbidity represent a priority target group for patient-centeredness (PC). We aimed to investigate the transferability of an existing integrated model of PC comprising 15 dimensions on the care of older adults with multimorbidity from an expert perspective. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 242 experts were invited to participate in a 2-round online Delphi study. In round 1, they were asked to (a) individually rate relevance and clarity of the dimensions, (b) add missing dimensions, and (c) prioritize the dimensions. In round 2, experts received results of round 1 and were asked to rerate their ratings. RESULTS: Forty-eight experts participated in round 1 and 39 in round 2. Ten dimensions were rated as sufficiently relevant and clear, including one new dimension ("prognosis and life expectancy, burden of treatment"). Four dimensions were rated as relevant but insufficiently clear. One dimension failed to reach our validation threshold on both criteria. The 5 dimensions rated as most important were: "patient as a unique person," "clinician-patient communication," "patient involvement in care," "physical, cognitive, and emotional support," and "involvement of family and friends." DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The experts' ratings were higher regarding relevance than regarding clarity, which emphasizes the still existing conceptual uncertainty of PC. Our results give further directions regarding the operationalization of PC in older adults with multimorbidity, which is essential for its implementation in routine care. Further refined using focus groups with geriatric patients, our adapted model serves as a basis for a systematic review of assessment instruments.

Choosing the appropriate treatment setting: which information and decision-making needs do adult inpatients with mental disorders have? A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Decisions on medical treatment setting are perceived as important but often difficult to make for patients with mental disorders. Shared decision-making as a strategy to decrease decisional conflict has been recommended, but is not yet widely implemented. This study aimed to investigate the information needs and the decision-making preferences of patients with mental disorders prior to the decision for a certain treatment setting. The results will serve as a prerequisite for the development of a high-quality patient decision aid (PtDA) regarding the treatment setting decision. METHODS: We conducted retrospective individual semi-structured interviews with n=24 patients with mental disorders in three psychotherapeutic inpatient care units. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, coded, and content-analyzed. RESULTS: The majority of the patients wanted to be involved in the decision-making process. They reported high information needs regarding treatment options in order to feel empowered to participate adequately in the decision for a certain treatment setting. However, some patients did not want to participate or receive information, for example, because of their high burden of mental disorder. Whereas the majority were satisfied with the extent they were involved in the decision, few participants felt sufficiently informed about treatment options. Most patients reported that a decision aid regarding an appropriate treatment setting would have been helpful for them. Important information that should be included in a PtDA was general information about mental illness, effective treatment options, specific information about the different treatment settings, and access to treatment. DISCUSSION: The identified information and decision-making needs provide a valuable basis for the development of a PtDA aiming to support patients and caregivers regarding the decision for an adequate treatment setting. As preferences for participation vary among patients and also depend on the current mental state, a flexible approach is needed to meet patients' individual wishes and needs.