Although the DSM-5 section III alternative model provided a substantially different taxonomic structure for personality disorders, the associations between this new approach and the traditional personality disorder concepts in DSM-5 section II make it possible to render traditional personality disorder concepts using alternative model traits in combination with core impairments in personality functioning.

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.

No abstract

In an initial investigation by Morey and Ochoa (1989), adherence to DSM-III personality disorder diagnostic criteria was examined as an agreement rate between clinician (global) diagnoses and diagnoses algorithmically generated from DSM-III criteria rules. Morey and Ochoa (1989) findings suggested significant clinician-criterion diagnostic incongruity, a result that cross-validated in a DSM-III-R replication performed by Blashfield and Herkov (1996). The current study examined such adherence, utilizing DSM-IV decision rules, in a national sample of 337 clinicians and their target patients. The results of the current study are largely consistent with the earlier findings, with clinician-criterion agreement rates comparable to those commonly reported for interdiagnostician reliability. Ramifications for the future of personality disorder diagnostic classification are discussed.

No abstract