The paradigm of personality psychopathology is shifting from one that is purely categorical in nature to one grounded in dimensional individual differences. Section III (Emerging Measures and Models) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), for example, includes a hybrid categorical/dimensional model of personality disorder classification. To inform the hybrid model, the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group developed a self-report instrument to assess pathological personality traits-the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5). Since its recent introduction, 30 papers (39 samples) have been published examining various aspects of its psychometric properties. In this article, we review the psychometric characteristics of the PID-5 using the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing as our framework. The PID-5 demonstrates adequate psychometric properties, including a replicable factor structure, convergence with existing personality instruments, and expected associations with broadly conceptualized clinical constructs. More research is needed with specific consideration to clinical utility, additional forms of reliability and validity, relations with psychopathological personality traits using clinical samples, alternative methods of criterion validation, effective employment of cut scores, and the inclusion of validity scales to propel this movement forward.

Extensive evidence suggests neuroticism is a higher‐order personality trait that overlaps substantially with perfectionism dimensions and depressive symptoms. Such evidence raises an important question: Which perfectionism dimensions are vulnerability factors for depressive symptoms after controlling for neuroticism? To address this, a meta‐analysis of research testing whether socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, personal standards, perfectionistic attitudes, self‐criticism and self‐oriented perfectionism predict change in depressive symptoms, after controlling for baseline depression and neuroticism, was conducted. A literature search yielded 10 relevant studies (N = 1,758). Meta‐analysis using random‐effects models revealed that all seven perfectionism dimensions had small positive relationships with follow‐up depressive symptoms beyond baseline depression and neuroticism. Perfectionism dimensions appear neither redundant with nor captured by neuroticism. Results lend credence and coherence to theoretical accounts and empirical studies suggesting perfectionism dimensions are part of the premorbid personality of people vulnerable to depressive symptoms. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology

In this paper we present the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), an evidencebased alternative to the categorical approach to diagnostic classification with considerable promise for integrative psychotherapy research and practice. We first review issues associated with the categorical approach that may have constrained advances in psychotherapy. We next describe how the HiTOP model addresses some of these issues. We then offer suggestions regarding potentially mutual benefits of integrating HiTOP with treatment principles from the common factors literature as well as the cognitive-behavioral and relational psychotherapy traditions. We conclude by enumerating principles for psychotherapy research and practice based on the HiTOP model, which are illustrated with a case example.

Nearly two decades ago, Harkness and Lilienfeld (1997) published a seminal article in which they articulated the potential roles that personality assessment might play in treatment planning. Four broad areas were outlined, including how personality assessment can (a) inform where to focus change efforts, (b) foster realistic expectations of therapeutic gains, (c) facilitate effective treatment matching, and (d) enhance self-development. We review the literature examining the role of personality assessment in treatment, using these four recommendations as a framework. We conclude that more research is needed to test (a) whether changes in characteristic adaptations mediate effects of basic personality dispositions on symptom improvement, (b) the effect of personality on treatment motivation and homework compliance, (c) the role of personality in the prediction of various aspects of psychotherapy, and (d) the efficacy of therapeutic assessment techniques using measures of universal personality traits. We also assert, more generally, that although the field has progressed to some extent in the past two decades, clinical psychologists should cultivate and advance a stronger recognition of how personality assessment can be used to enhance treatment interventions. We believe positive treatment is optimized if psychotherapists or other providers of intervention are equipped with information from personality assessment to select treatment modalities and construct treatment plans.Clinical psychologists possess highly specialized and unique skillsets in their capacity to deliver evidencebased therapies and discipline-specific training in psychological assessment (American Psychological Association, 2016). Yet despite this unique combination of skill and knowledge, it is uncommon for clinical psychologists to use evidence-based personality assessment to inform treatment decisions. One explanation for this is that research examining the role of personality assessment in treatment is not sufficiently developed to inform empirically supported guidelines for psychotherapeutic decision making. There is no shortage, however, of speculation for why and how personality assessments can be used to enhance treatment.Approximately two decades ago, Harkness and Lilienfeld (1997) published a seminal article identifying four ways in which personality assessment can inform treatment planning. These authors suggested that personality assessment could and should be used to (a) inform where to focus change efforts, (b) foster realistic expectations of therapeutic gains, (c) facilitate effective treatment matching, and (d) promote self-development. In the current article, we review the existing empirical research examining the role of personality assessment in treatment, as guided by the framework of these four recommendations. A focus is placed on personality as