Avoidant personality disorder (APD) and social phobia (SP) are closely related, such that they are suggested to represent different severity levels of one social anxiety disorder. This cross-sectional study aimed to compare patients with APD to patients with SP, with particular focus on personality dysfunction. Ninety-one adult patients were examined by diagnostic interviews and self-report measures, including the Index of Self-Esteem and the Severity Indices of Personality Problems. Patients were categorized in three groups; SP without APD (n = 20), APD without SP (n = 15), and APD with SP (n = 56). Compared to patients with SP without APD, patients with APD reported more symptom disorders, psychosocial problems, criteria of personality disorders, and personality dysfunction regarding self-esteem, identity and relational problems. These results indicate that APD involves more severe and broader areas of personality dysfunction than SP, supporting the conceptualization of APD as a personality disorder as proposed for DSM-5.
The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), fifth edition (DSM-5), defines personality functioning by assessment of impairment in Identity and Self-direction (Self-component) and in Empathy and Intimacy (Interpersonal). These four domains constitute the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), a trans-diagnostic measure of PD severity. The association between the LPFS and psychosocial impairment based on other previously established psychosocial functioning instruments has not been reported. A total of 317 individuals, including a representative clinical sample of 282 patients (192 with a PD diagnosis), was evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 AMPD (SCID-5-AMPD) Module I. Self-reported impairment was measured by the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) and social and occupational impairment was assessed by the functioning score of Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF-F). WSAS and GAF-F both correlated significantly with mean LPFS scores and the sum of DSM-IV PD criteria. For both measures, the mean LPFS was a stronger predictor for psychosocial impairment than the sum of DSM-IV PD criteria. Within the LPFS, the Self component was a better predictor than the Interpersonal component for both WSAS and GAF-F. For the four domains the results diverged, with Identity as the strongest predictor by far for WSAS. Empathy was the only significant predictor for impairment evaluated by GAF-F, but its contribution to variance was not substantial.
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.