Prevalence and structure of self‐other problems in SAPAS screening for personality disorder in a National Sample

Abstract

Aim -This study investigated the prevalence and factorial structure of personality disorder features in the general community measured with the self-report form of the Standardized Assessment of Personality -Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS-SR). Method -SAPAS-SR was administered to a Danish national community sample (N = 50,326; 53% women). The hierarchical latent structure was examined using exploratory factor analyses (EFA) for one to three levels.Results -We found that 11.3% of the community sample fulfilled the estimated screening criteria for a personality disorder, which was slightly higher for woman and younger people. As hypothesized, a two-factor model corresponded to aspects of self (e.g., being a worrier) and others (e.g., having difficulty making and keeping friends), whereas a three-factor model corresponded to trait domains of negative affectivity, detachment, and externalization. Conclusion -These findings suggest that personality disorder features play a significant role for at least one out of ten individuals in the Danish general community. Such features are primarily organized in a pattern of selfand interpersonal functioning, which is consistent with the conceptualization of core personality dysfunction in the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders and the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders.

A psychometric evaluation of the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD) in nonclinical and clinical German samples.

“…In support of this, we observed high factor loadings of corresponding items reflecting three of the five trait dimensions of Detachment, Externalization/Disinhibition, and Negative Affectivity. A similar three factor structure was reported for SAP-AS (e.g., Bach, Kongerslev, & Simonsen, 2019;Germans et al, 2008). In sum, the SASPD may be valuable as an index measure of specific PD characteristics but not necessarily for the assessment of PD severity as a unidimensional construct.…”

Personality Disorders in the ICD-11: Spanish Validation of the PiCD and the SASPD in a Mixed Community and Clinical Sample

“…The attempt to retain five factors does not bring us any closer to a meaningful five-factor system, because disinhibition and anankastia cannot be recovered as separate domains. Instead, two narrower bipolar domains emerge, reflecting “impulsivity” and “carelessness.” Furthermore, although both models fit the data about equally well in ESEM, the four-factor solution was more congruent between the samples and with the literature: Whereas the bipolar domain of disinhibition–anankastia showed at least partial agreement with prior solutions (Φ = .82 with Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018; .94 with Bach et al, 2019; .96 with Carnovale et al, 2020), impulsivity and carelessness did not (.29 to .86; Table 3). The PiCD has also resulted in a four-factor structure whenever it has been analyzed together with other questionnaires (Crego & Widiger, 2019; McCabe & Widiger, 2020; Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018, 2020; Somma et al, 2020).…”

“…Items are sorted following the four-factor solution. na = negative affectivity; dt = detachment; ds = dissociality; dn = disinhibition; ak = anankastia; comm = community sample; clin = clinical sample; Oltmanns = Oltmanns and Widiger (2018); Bach = Bach et al (2019); Carnovale = Carnovale et al (2020).…”

“…Thus, we do not know whether the SASPD, which seeks to reflect the combined impact of five different traits, really forms a single dimension or in fact forms several. Thus far, neither the only study on its structure (Rek et al, 2019) nor the evidence on its predecessor, the Standardized Assessment of Personality–Abbreviated Scale (Bach et al, 2019), have particularly supported unidimensionality. We also need to test in larger community and clinical samples how far severity overlaps with personality traits, as the evidence available up to now suggests blurred boundaries (McCabe & Widiger, 2020; Oltmanns & Widiger, 2019).…”

The clinical utility of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders and related traits: A preliminary scoping review

“…Operationalizations of the ICD-11 PD classification system have robust construct validity (Bagby and Widiger, 2020; Crego and Widiger, 2019; Oltmanns and Widiger, 2018, 2019), have high convergences with criterion measures (Bach et al, 2018; McCabe and Widiger, 2020; Oltmanns and Widiger, 2020) and show reliability cross-culturally (Bach and El Abiddine, 2020; Bach et al, 2020; Gutierrez et al, 2020; Kim et al, 2020; Somma et al, 2020). While construct validity is an essential requirement for the endorsement of a classification system, it is not sufficient (Hopwood et al, 2018).…”