Structure of DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 personality domains in Iranian community sample

Lotfi, Mozhgan; Bach, Bo; Amini, Mahdi; Simonsen, Erik

doi:10.1002/pmh.1409

Cited by 54 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern may be viewed as higher‐order trait domains of the underlying structure of personality dysfunction. Notably, these three domains also resemble identified higher‐order domains in previous research on the hierarchical structure of DSM‐5‐AMPD and ICD‐11 trait domains as well as higher‐order domains of the emerging Hierarchical Structure of Psychopathology (HiTOP) …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

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

Bach

Kongerslev

Simonsen

2019

Personality & Mental Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

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

Bach

Kongerslev

Simonsen

2019

Personality & Mental Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, as shown in Table 5 , the deliniation of five trait domain qualifiers aligns with other empirically-derived dimensional schemes, including the cross-culturally replicated Five-Factor Model [ 19 – 21 ] and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders [ 22 – 24 ]. The ICD-11 trait domain qualifiers not only provide scientifically sound and homogenous building blocks of personality psychopathology but also clinical information for selecting type and focus of treatment [ 25 – 28 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders focuses on core personality dysfunction, while allowing the practitioner to classify three levels of severity (Mild Personality Disorder, Moderate Personality Disorder, and Severe Personality Disorder) and the option of specifying one or more prominent trait domain qualifiers (Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Disinhibition, Dissociality, and Anankastia). Additionally, the practitioner is also allowed to specify a Borderline Pattern qualifier. This article presents how the ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification may be applied in clinical practice using five brief cases.Case presentation(1) a 29-year-old woman with Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity, Disinhibition, and Dissociality; (2) a 36-year-old man with Mild Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Detachment; (3) a 26-year-old man with Severe Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Detachment; (4) a 19-year-old woman with Personality Difficulty, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Anankastia; (5) a 53-year-old man with Moderate Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Anankastia and Dissociality.ConclusionsThe ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification was applicable to five clinical cases, which were classified according to Personaity Disorder severity and trait domain qualifiers. We propose that the classification of severity may help inform clinical prognosis and intensity of treatment, whereas the coding of trait qualifiers may help inform the focus and style of treatment. Empirical investigation of such important aspects of clinical utility are warranted.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-1908-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…[13][14][15][16] Moreover, a number of preliminary studies have sought to examine the new framework with regard to its reliability and validity. 14,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Previous research on perceived clinical utility of personality disorder models…”

Section: The Icd-11 Classification Of Personality Disordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The empirical rationale for the ICD‐11 PD classification was informed by reviews of the literature on PD severity and traits . Moreover, a number of preliminary studies have sought to examine the new framework with regard to its reliability and validity …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD‐10 vs. ICD‐11 classification of personality disorders

Hansen

Christensen

Kongerslev

et al. 2019

Personality & Mental Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The ICD‐11 classification of personality disorders (PDs) has adopted a dimensional approach which includes three levels of severity (mild, moderate and severe) with the option of specifying five trait qualifiers (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition and anankastia) and one borderline pattern qualifier. This study examined mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD‐11 PD framework compared with the ICD‐10 categorical PD framework. Method A sample of 163 mental health professionals (primarily psychologists, nurses and medical doctors) completed a survey in which they were asked to apply the ICD‐10 and ICD‐11 PD classifications on one of their patients followed by judgement of their clinical utility. Results The ICD‐11 PD framework was generally rated as being slightly more useful than the ICD‐10 framework even when accounting for educational background and years of experience. This advantage particularly involved the utility for treatment planning, communicating with patients, comprehensiveness and ease of use. The two frameworks showed no significant differences with respect to utility for communicating with other professionals and describing global personality. Conclusion This study provided initial evidence that mental health professionals perceive the ICD‐11 PD classification as slightly more useful for clinical practice than the ICD‐10 classification. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Structure of DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 personality domains in Iranian community sample

Abstract: This study provided initial support for the structural validity of DSM-5 and ICD-11 PD trait models in Iranian culture. Future research warrants replication in larger samples and clinical populations. Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cited by 54 publications

References 51 publications

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

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

Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders

Mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD‐10 vs. ICD‐11 classification of personality disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About