Predicting dropout using DSM–5 Section II personality disorders, and DSM–5 Section III personality traits, in a (day)clinical sample of personality disorders.

Berghuis, Han; Bandell, Coen C.; Krueger, Robert F.

doi:10.1037/per0000429

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, in a recent study conducted in a large sample of psychiatric patients, AMPD Disinhibition (which includes the Impulsivity and Risk taking facets) was associated with a twofold increase in dropout risk [50]. It should be noted that another study found no role for Disinhibition in the prediction of dropout for patients with Cluster C and mild Cluster B PDs [51].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Latent profiles of patients with borderline pathology based on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

Gamache

Savard

Leclerc

et al. 2021

bord personal disord emot dysregul

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There have been multiple attempts to try to parse out heterogeneity within borderline pathology by identifying patient subtypes; thus far, these works have yielded few consistent results. Recent developments in the operationalization of borderline pathology may provide new opportunities to identify clinically and conceptually meaningful subgroups of patients. The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) offers a categorical-dimensional operationalization of Borderline personality disorder (BPD) that has yet to be tested for identification of patient subgroups. The purpose of the present study is to test whether the combination of the Criterion A elements (pertaining to level of severity) and the seven pathological facets from Criterion B that define BPD in the AMPD can yield meaningful patient profiles. Methods A total of 211 outpatients from a specialized PD treatment program (133 women, Mage = 33.66, SD = 10.97) were selected based on the presence of at least moderate borderline pathology according to cutoffs recently proposed for the Borderline Symptom List-23. Valid Criterion A (Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Faceted Brief Form) self-reports were administered to measure elements and facets that define BPD in the AMPD model; these variables were used as indicators in a latent profile analysis (LPA). Results The optimal solution generated by LPA yielded four distinct profiles: (a) Borderline traits; (b) Moderate pathology with Impulsivity; (c) Moderate pathology with Identity problems and Depressivity; and (d) Severe pathology. Clinically meaningful distinctions emerged among profiles on AMPD indicators and external variables relevant to PD, especially aggression and impulsivity. Conclusions Profiles reflected both the “severity” and “style” components imbedded within Criterion A and B of the AMPD, as they were mainly distinguished by a continuum of severity but also by some meaningful qualitative differences that may have important clinical implications for treatment planning and contracting. Results also suggest that the four Criterion A elements have independent value to identify important differences in patients with borderline pathology. They also highlight that some Criterion B facets that define BPD in the AMPD may be especially important to identify subgroups of patients, mainly Impulsivity and Depressivity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Latent profiles of patients with borderline pathology based on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

Gamache

Savard

Leclerc

et al. 2021

bord personal disord emot dysregul

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using a large sample of psychiatric patients in treatment, Rodriguez-Seijas et al (2020) found that patients who terminated treatment prematurely particularly reported higher levels of disinhibition and psychoticism domains. More specifically, Berghuis et al (2021) investigated the utility of Criterion B trait facets in predicting dropout in an intensive outpatient setting for PD patients. They mainly found the facets of perceptual dysregulation, unusual belief and experiences, suspiciousness, rigid perfectionism, and low scores on restricted affectivity to be significant predictors of dropout from treatment.…”

Section: A Useful Diagnosis Says Something About Prognosis Risk and O...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical utility of the alternative model of personality disorders: A 10th year anniversary review.

Bach¹,

Tracy²

2022

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, (DSM–5) alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) has now been available for researchers and clinicians for a decade. The present article aims to provide a narrative review of literature on the AMPD framework with particular emphasis on its clinical utility, inclusive of clinicians’ and patients’ acceptability, ease of use, diagnostic accuracy, continuity with clinically familiar constructs, and proposed utility for treatment planning, case-formulation, and clinical management. The review specifically covers the utility of Criterion A (i.e., Level of Personality Functioning Scale) and Criterion B (i.e., maladaptive personality traits) in relation to common disorders of personality. By drawing on empirical studies, surveys, clinical cases, and recommendations, the current review points to various aspects of clinical utility as well as areas for improvement. One way of increasing the AMPD’s feasibility for clinicians is to omit the transitional personality disorder (PD) hybrid types while retaining a purer diagnostic classification of PD severity and traits that also align with the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11), PD classification. This would allow for a more efficient assessment for busy practitioners working in general psychiatry and primary care while retaining the possibility of a more fine-grained elaboration of the PD diagnosis in high-resource specialist settings. Such revision could possibly be introduced in DSM–5.1 or DSM–6. We also propose that future exploration of the AMPD’s clinical utility may involve its potential value for allocation of clinical resources, communication between clinicians and their patients’ relatives, and utility for informing different treatment modalities.

show abstract

“…based in part on client ratings on the PID-5-BF. Future studies in this area should continue to expand upon the small body of research exploring the role of maladaptive personality traits in treatment continuance or premature service termination (Berghuis et al, 2021;Rodriguez-Seijas et al, 2020). These findings must be replicated in other community and clinical samples, but preliminary results point to the potential utility of the PID-5-BF in the assessment of treatment attitudes and motivation.…”

Section: Atspph-openness Atspph-valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rodriguez‐Seijas et al, (2020) found increased levels of disinhibition and psychoticism to be associated with early termination of treatment in a large sample of patients in a partial hospital program. Similarly, in a sample of patients seeking treatment for personality disorders at a specialty outpatient client, facets of psychoticism were associated with either not starting the treatment program or dropping out prematurely (Berghuis et al, 2021). Regarding stigma, in a sample of inpatient psychiatric patients, Williams and Rogers (2019) found experiences of stigma were positively associated with all five trait domains, whereas only negative affect (positively) exhibited a significant association with internalized stigma.…”

Section: Considering Maladaptive Variants Of Ffm Trait Domainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental health treatment stigma, maladaptive personality trait domains, and treatment‐seeking attitudes and behaviors

Onyeukwu,

Donahue

2023

J Clin Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesA barrier to seeking mental health care is treatment stigma, a form of stigma associated with seeking/receiving mental health treatment. Prior research has also demonstrated relationships between five‐factor model personality traits and treatment‐seeking attitudes. However, findings in this area are mixed and research has tended not to include assessments of maladaptive personality traits outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth Edition Section III: Emerging Measures and Models. The present study sought to examine relationships between maladaptive personality traits, treatment stigma, and treatment‐seeking attitudes and behavior in an adult sample.MethodsParticipants (N = 500) completed a series of questionnaires assessing current and past mental health treatment‐seeking behaviors, treatment stigma, attitudes toward treatment seeking, and maldaptive personality traits.ResultsResults revealed all five maladaptive personality traits were positively associated with increased treatment stigma, and in models controlling for the shared variance across maladaptive personality traits, negative affect, antagonism, psychoticism, and stigma exhibited unique associations with one's perceived value and need of mental health treatment, whereas negative affect, detachment, and stigma were uniquely associated with openness to seeking mental health treatment for emotional problems. While the five maladaptive personality traits were associated with a history of treatment‐seeking behaviors at the bivariate level and after controlling for stigma, only negative affect was uniquely associated with treatment‐seeking behaviors in a model including all five personality trait domains. Exploratory moderation analyses revealed associations between stigma and openness to seeking treatment varied as a function of maladaptive personality traits.ConclusionsThis study extends prior research on the role of personality traits in understanding treatment‐seeking attitudes and behaviors and may have clinical implications for the use of maladaptive personality trait screeners in practice.

show abstract

Predicting dropout using DSM–5 Section II personality disorders, and DSM–5 Section III personality traits, in a (day)clinical sample of personality disorders.

Cited by 6 publications

References 55 publications

Latent profiles of patients with borderline pathology based on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

Latent profiles of patients with borderline pathology based on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders

Clinical utility of the alternative model of personality disorders: A 10th year anniversary review.

Mental health treatment stigma, maladaptive personality trait domains, and treatment‐seeking attitudes and behaviors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About