Reliability, structure, and validity of module I (personality functioning) of the Structured Clinical Interview for the alternative DSM–5 model for personality disorders (SCID-5-AMPD-I).

Ohse, Ludwig; Zimmermann, Johannes; Kerber, André; Kampe, Leonie; Mohr, Jil; Kendlbacher, Julia; Busch, O.; Rentrop, Michael; Hörz-Sagstetter, Susanne

doi:10.1037/per0000576

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(115 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Bach and Hutsebaut (2018) found incremental validity of Criterion A over B in predicting wellbeing and symptom severity, while Ohse et al (2022) found incremental validity of Criterion B over A in predicting psychosocial functioning (WHODAS). Of note, the results of Ohse et al (2022) might be biased in favor of Criterion B by a method factor, as both Criterion B and psychosocial functioning were measured by self-report while Criterion A was measured by an interview. Our study was the first to adhere to a longitudinal design, allowing for prediction over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.

Weekers,

Hutsebaut,

Rovers

et al. 2024

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the predictive validity of Criterion A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) compared to the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder (PD) model in predicting patient outcomes 1 year after initial assessment, in a hetero-method longitudinal design. A clinical sample of 84 participants were administered both traditional Section II and AMPD interviews by two independent interviewers. One year after assessment, disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0) and symptom severity (Brief Symptom Inventory) were assessed. The Section II PD model did not predict disability (R 2 = .01) nor symptom severity (R 2 = .03). The AMPD model, on the other hand, predicted both disability (R 2 = .23) and symptom severity (R 2 = .29) 1-year postinitial assessment. Both Criterion A and B were significant predictors, but when jointly combined only Criterion A remained significantly predictive of both disability and symptom severity while Criterion B did not. Criterion A thus appears to capture core vulnerabilities of personality-disordered patients that are related to future functioning and symptom severity. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.

Weekers,

Hutsebaut,

Rovers

et al. 2024

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants were enrolled in the “Berlin study of the AMPD” (for more information, see https://osf.io/bhq94 and Ohse et al [31]). In the current study, only participants who completed the MET with a sufficiently large device ( n = 119) were included (see below).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Structured Clinical Interview for the AMPD -Module I The SCID-5-AMPD-I [33,37] is a semi-structured interview which assesses personality functioning, according to criterion A of the AMPD, on the twelve LPFS subdomains which are rated by a clinician on a scale from 0 (little or no impairment) to 4 (extreme impairment) and can be aggregated to four domains (identity, selfdirection, empathy, and intimacy), two higher order dimensions (self and interpersonal functioning), and the global level of personality functioning. The SCID-5-AMPD-I has proven to be a valid and reliable measure for personality functioning [31]. In the present investigation, it was conducted by three MSc psychologists (Ludwig Ohse, André Kerber, and Jil Mohr); two had little clinical experience, and one was a licensed psychotherapist with 6 years of clinical experience.…”

Section: Multifaceted Empathy Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impairments in Cognitive and Emotional Empathy as Markers of General versus Specific Personality Pathology

Ohse,

Zimmermann,

Kerber

et al. 2023

Psychopathology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – 5th edition (DSM-5) considers impairments in empathy a basic feature of personality disorders (PDs). In contrast, the AMPD pathological personality trait model and the categorical DSM-5 Section II PD model associate deficits in empathy to specific forms of personality pathology. The present study investigated to what extent impairments in cognitive and emotional empathy are markers of general versus specific personality pathology. Methods: In a clinical sample (n = 119), the Multifaceted Empathy Test was used to assess cognitive empathy, emotional empathy for positive emotions, and emotional empathy for negative emotions. Personality functioning, pathological personality traits, and DSM-5 Section II PDs were assessed via interviews and self-reports. Confirmatory factor analyses were applied to associate the three empathy facets with the three personality pathology approaches, each modeled with general personality pathology (common factor) and specific personality pathology (residuals of indicators). Results: Impairments in cognitive empathy and emotional empathy for positive emotions were significantly correlated with general personality pathology. All three empathy facets were also correlated to specific personality pathology when controlling for general personality pathology, respectively. Impairments in cognitive empathy were incrementally associated with identity and empathy (personality functioning), psychoticism (pathological personality traits), and paranoid and dependent PD (DSM-5 Section II PDs). Deficits in emotional empathy for positive emotions were incrementally associated with self-direction and intimacy (personality functioning) and detachment (pathological personality traits). Impairments in emotional empathy for negative emotions were incrementally associated with antagonism (pathological personality traits) and antisocial PD (DSM-5 Section II PDs). Conclusion: The results suggest that impairments in cognitive empathy and emotional empathy for positive emotions, but not for negative emotions, are markers of general personality pathology, while deficits in the three empathy facets are also markers for specific personality pathology.

show abstract

“…At the same time, the example of reliability also demonstrates that Morey et al (2022) failed to point out gaps, uncertainties, and research needs. More specifically, with the exception of two studies with only 33 (Buer Christensen et al, 2018) and 30 participants (Ohse et al, in press), the retest reliability of LPFS ratings has not been investigated. In test–retest designs, the same target person is interviewed and rated independently by two different persons.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond defending or abolishing Criterion A: Comment on Morey et al. (2022).

Zimmermann¹

2022

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their target article, Morey et al. (2022) provided a comprehensive overview of research on Criterion A of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders over the past 10 years. Although this overview is undoubtedly informative and helpful, it offers little guidance on both certain weaknesses of Criterion A and research gaps and needs. A structural reason for this could be that the scientific field is divided into 2 camps with respect to Criterion A: Some authors focus mainly on confirmatory results and want to defend Criterion A in its current form, whereas others take the same results as an opportunity to call for its abolition. In this situation, there is little room for a nuanced and constructive discussion of the empirical and conceptual strengths and weaknesses of Criterion A. In this commentary, I use 2 examples to illustrate what research aimed at revising Criterion A might look like. From an empirical point of view, studies that take into account the peculiarities of the latent structure of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale are important because they can reveal local misspecification and challenges for the assessment of single cases. From a conceptual point of view, a more consistent definition of Criterion A in terms of impairments in "capacities" could allow for a more coherent distinction from maladaptive "traits." This commentary hopes to strengthen a discourse that moves beyond the alternatives of defense or abolition toward the concrete improvement of Criterion A.

show abstract

Reliability, structure, and validity of module I (personality functioning) of the Structured Clinical Interview for the alternative DSM–5 model for personality disorders (SCID-5-AMPD-I).

Cited by 12 publications

References 57 publications

Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.

Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later.

Impairments in Cognitive and Emotional Empathy as Markers of General versus Specific Personality Pathology

Beyond defending or abolishing Criterion A: Comment on Morey et al. (2022).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About