Commentary on “The Challenge of Transforming the Diagnostic System of Personality Disorders”

Hopwood, Christopher J.; Krueger, Robert F.; Watson, David; Widiger, Thomas A.; Althoff, Robert R.; Ansell, Emily B.; Bach, Bo; Bagby, R. Michael; Blais, Mark A.; Bornovalova, Marina A.; Chmielewski, Michael S.; Cicero, David C.; Conway, Christopher; Clerq, Barbara De; Fruyt, Filip De; Docherty, Anna R.; Eaton, Nicholas R.; Edens, John F.; Forbes, Miriam K.; Forbush, Kelsie T.; Hengartner, Michael Pascal; Ivanova, Masha Y.; Leising, Daniel; Lukowitsky, Mark R.; Lynam, Donald R.; Markon, Kristian E.; Miller, Joshua D.; Morey, Leslie C.; Mullins‐Sweatt, Stephanie N.; Ormel, Johan; Patrick, Christopher J.; Pincus, Aaron L.; Ruggero, Camilo J.; Samuel, Douglas B.; Sellbom, Martin; Tackett, Jennifer L.; Thomas, Katherine M.; Trull, Timothy J.; Vachon, David D.; Waldman, Irwin D.; Waszczuk, Monika A.; Waugh, Mark H.; Wright, Aidan G.C.; Yalch, Mathew M.; Zald, David H.; Zimmermann, Johannes

doi:10.1521/pedi_2019_33_00

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The best conceptualization of PDs is a contentious issue within the field (Herpertz et al, 2017; Hopwood et al, 2019). PDs have traditionally been conceptualized through a categorical approach, however, these traditional PD diagnoses have been criticized for their lack of empirical basis, high levels of symptom overlap, limited diagnostic reliability, the use of arbitrary diagnostic thresholds and heterogeneity within diagnoses (e.g., Morey et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations between MMPI‐3 scale scores and the DSM‐5 personality disorders

Brown

Sellbom

2021

J Clin Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The current study examined associations between Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐3 (MMPI‐3) scales and self‐reported DSM‐5 Section II personality disorder (PD) symptoms. A priori hypotheses were generated for which MMPI‐3 scales would be most highly associated with each PD. Methods We used a large sample (n = 489) of university students, who completed the MMPI‐3 and two established self‐report measures of personality disorders. Results The results were generally consistent with theoretical expectations and previous research utilizing the MMPI‐2‐RF. Specifically, most hypothesized MMPI‐3 scales exhibited meaningful associations with relevant PD variables, although there were some notable exceptions. The regression models revealed significant predictors for each PD which were generally consistent with expectations and previous research. Conclusions Overall, the MMPI‐3 appears well situated to cover a range of DSM‐5 Section II PD‐related psychopathology, and three of the new MMPI‐3 scales appear to have added utility for assessing personality pathology.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations between MMPI‐3 scale scores and the DSM‐5 personality disorders

Brown

Sellbom

2021

J Clin Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the last year of the consideration of the ICD-11 proposals, there was, however, an expression of strong, vocal opposition (Reed, 2018). The objections raised by Herpertz et al (2017) were subsequently rebuked by a number of notable scholars in the field (Hopwood et al, 2018; 2019), but, nevertheless, revisions were made to the proposal to address some of the concerns (Reed, 2018; Tyrer et al, 2019). More specifically, the level of personality disorder severity was revised to incorporate the self and interpersonal impairments included within the DSM–5 AMPD LPF (although not to the predominating degree of the level of severity rating as is the case within the LPF), and a borderline pattern (essentially equivalent to DSM–IV borderline personality disorder) was added to the five-domain dimensional trait model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the ICD-11 dimensional trait model: An introduction to the special section.

Bagby

Widiger

2020

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 11th edition of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2018) is scheduled to include a major shift in the classification of personality disorders. All (but one) of the ICD-10 categorical personality disorder syndromes will be deleted from the ICD-11, replaced by a five-domain dimensional trait model. The five ICD-11 trait domains are negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia. Clinicians first rate a patient with respect to a level of personality disorder severity, followed by the option of also rating the person with respect to the five trait domains along with a borderline pattern qualifier. This special section of Psychological Assessment is concerned with the self-report assessment of the ICD-11 personality disorders section, particularly (albeit not exclusively) with respect to the dimensional trait model.

show abstract

“…While most experts believed that personality pathology was dimensional in nature, a majority preferred a hybrid model (a mixture of dimension and categories) ( 4 ). Just before the WHO final approval of the ICD-11 representatives from the European, International, and North American Societies for the Study of Personality Disorders expressed their strong concerns ( 24 ). The central issue was the loss of Borderline Personality Disorder.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ICD-11 classification allows clinicians to specify a borderline pattern qualifier, which essentially consists of the nine DSM-5 diagnostic features. This coding was a pragmatic solution to objections from many senior researchers around the loss of this historically important construct ( 24 ). Nevertheless, the ICD-11 working group felt that the severity and trait model could fully account for the borderline pattern ( 27 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICD-11 Personality Disorders: Utility and Implications of the New Model

Mulder

2021

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ICD-11 classification of personality disorders represents a paradigm shift in diagnosis. This was felt necessary because previous personality disorder classifications had major problems. These included unnecessary complexity, inconsistency with data on normal personality traits, and minimal consideration of severity despite this being shown to be the major predictor of outcome. The ICD-11 classification abolishes all categories of personality disorder except for a general description of personality disorder. This diagnosis can be further specified as “mild,” “moderate,” or “severe.” Patient behavior can be described using one or more of five personality trait domains; negative affectivity, dissociality, anankastia, detachment, and disinhibition. Clinicians may also specify a borderline pattern qualifier. The ICD-11 shows considerable alignment with the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. Early evidence around the reliability and validity of the new model appear promising, although at present there is still limited specific evidence due to the model being so recently finalized. However, for the model to be successful, it needs to be embraced by clinicians and used widely in normal clinical practice.

show abstract

Commentary on “The Challenge of Transforming the Diagnostic System of Personality Disorders”

Cited by 10 publications

References 6 publications

Associations between MMPI‐3 scale scores and the DSM‐5 personality disorders

Associations between MMPI‐3 scale scores and the DSM‐5 personality disorders

Assessment of the ICD-11 dimensional trait model: An introduction to the special section.

ICD-11 Personality Disorders: Utility and Implications of the New Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About