Background: The 11th version of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) has adopted a dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) nosology. Notably, it includes an assessment of PD degree of severity, which can be classified according to five categories. To date, there is no gold standard measure for assessing degree of PD severity based on the ICD-11 model, and there are no empirically-based anchor points to delineate the proposed categories. With the operationalization of PD degrees of severity in the ICD-11 PD model now being closely aligned with Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), sharing a focus on self and interpersonal dysfunction, self-report instruments developed for the latter model might prove useful as screening tools to determine degrees of severity in the former.Methods: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale, a brief validated self-report questionnaire originally designed to assess level of personality pathology according to the AMPD framework, was used to derive anchor points to delineate the five severity degrees from the ICD-11 PD model. Data from five clinical and non-clinical samples (total N = 2,240) allowed identifying anchor points for classification, based on Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis, Latent Class Analysis, and data distribution statistics. Categories were validated using multiple indices pertaining to externalizing and internalizing symptoms relevant to PD.Results: Analyses yielded the following anchor points for PD degrees of severity: No PD = 0–1.04; Personality Difficulty = 1.05–1.29; Mild PD = 1.30–1.89; Moderate PD = 1.90–2.49; and Severe PD = 2.50 and above. A clear gradient of severity across the five categories was observed in all samples. A high number of significant contrasts among PD categories were also observed on external variables, consistent with the ICD-11 PD degree of severity operationalization.Conclusions: The present study provides potentially useful guidelines to determine severity of personality pathology based on the ICD-11 model. The use of a brief self-report questionnaire as a screening tool for assessing PD degrees of severity should be seen as a time-efficient support for clinical decision and treatment planning.

No abstract

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) retains six specific personality disorders (PDs) that can be diagnosed based on Criterion A level of impairment and Criterion B maladaptive facets. Those specific diagnoses are still underresearched, despite the preference expressed by most PD scholars for a mixed/hybrid classification. This study explores the possibility of using Criterion A and B self-report questionnaires to extract the specific AMPD diagnoses. Plausible prevalence estimates were found in three samples (outpatient PD, private practice, community; N = 766) using the facet score > 2 and t score > 65 methods for determining the presence of a Criterion B facet; diagnoses had meaningful correlations with external variables. This study provides evidence—albeit preliminary—that the extraction of the specific AMPD PDs from self-report questionnaires might be a viable avenue. Ultimately, it could promote the use and dissemination of those diagnoses for screening purposes in clinical and research settings.

No abstract

Although several studies have shown that childhood maltreatment (CM) is associated with a host of negative consequences including romantic relationship difficulties for victims in adulthood, most overlooked the potential effects on the romantic partner. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively synthesize the literature on the association between a person’s CM and their partner’s individual and couple outcomes. We searched PubMed, PsycNET, Medline, CINAHL, and Eric using search strings related to CM and partner. We identified 3,238 articles after removal of duplicates; 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and relied on independent sample. The studies reported associations between a person’s CM and a wide breadth of partner’s negative couple outcomes (e.g., communication, sexuality) as well as intra-individual psychological difficulties (e.g., psychological distress, emotion, and stress reactivity). Meta-analytic results showed significant, but trivial to small associations between a person’s CM and their partner’s lower relationship satisfaction ( r = −.09, 95% CI [−.14, −.04]), higher intimate partner violence ( r = .08, [.05, .12]), and higher psychological distress ( r = .11, [.06, .16]). These associations were similar for women and men and did not differ as a function of sample’s mean age, proportion of cultural diversity, and publication year. These findings suggest that a person’s CM is related to their partner’s outcomes including to the partner’s intra-individual outcomes. Prevention and intervention strategies should acknowledge that a person’s CM may also affect their romantic partner, considering the couple as a reciprocal system, and offer victims’ romantic partners specific services.