Ten-year retrospective on the DSM–5 alternative model of personality disorder: Seeing the forest for the trees.

Sharp, Carla; Miller, Joshua D.

doi:10.1037/per0000595

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the impressive amount of research interest that the AMPD has drawn since its publication (Sharp & Miller, 2022; Zimmerman et al, 2019) and the fact that a hybrid model is preferred to strictly dimensional or categorical models by PD experts (Morey & Hopwood, 2020), very few studies focused on the PD hybrid types that can be derived from the dimensional assessment of Criteria A and B (Gamache et al, 2022). It follows that no populational prevalence data are available for the PD hybrid types.…”

Section: Dimensional Assessment Of the Ampdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of the alternative model of personality disorders diagnoses in populational and at-risk samples, gender and age groups comparisons, and normative data for the LPFS-SR and PID-5.

Corff¹,

Lapalme²,

Rivard³

et al. 2023

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD), introduced in Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), was proposed as a new operationalization of personality disorders (PDs) aiming to overcome the several limitations of the traditional symptom-based model (Waugh et al., 2017; Zimmerman et al., 2019). In the AMPD, PDs are defined by two-dimensional criteria (the level of personality functioning and maladaptive personality traits), but as a hybrid model, it also allows for categorical assessment of PDs (i.e., “hybrid types”) to facilitate continuity with clinical practice. The present study aimed to provide normative data for two widely used instruments assessing Criterion A (Level of Personality Functioning Scale—Self-Report; Morey, 2017) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5; Krueger et al., 2012) in a large populational French-Canadian sample. Regarding the categorical assessment, Gamache et al. (2022) recently tested scoring approaches for extracting the PD hybrid types from dimensional measures of the AMPD. In the present study, these approaches were used to estimate prevalence rates for these PD hybrid types in two samples. In the populational sample, results showed that prevalence rates varied from 0.2% (antisocial PDs) to 3.0% (trait-specified PDs), with an overall prevalence of 5.9% to 6.1% for any PD hybrid type. Prevalence was higher in men than in women in the populational sample, but the contrary was observed in the at-risk sample. Prevalence was higher in younger adults than in middle-aged and older adults.

show abstract

Section: Dimensional Assessment Of the Ampdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of the alternative model of personality disorders diagnoses in populational and at-risk samples, gender and age groups comparisons, and normative data for the LPFS-SR and PID-5.

Corff¹,

Lapalme²,

Rivard³

et al. 2023

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM‐5 ) provides a transdiagnostic structure for maladaptive personality using two criteria A and B (American Psychiatric Association, 2013a; Zimmermann et al, 2019). Criterion A includes intrapersonal (identity and self‐direction) and interpersonal (intimacy and empathy) functioning and is measured using different versions of the DSM‐5 level of personality functioning scale (Krueger & Hobbs, 2020; Sharp & Miller, 2022). Criterion B consists of five domains of negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism (Krueger & Hobbs, 2020; Zimmermann et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical cut scores for the Persian version of the personality inventory for DSM‐5

Komasi,

Rezaei,

Hemmati

et al. 2023

J Clin Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe cut points of psychological tools to diagnose clinical conditions are not universal and depend on the region and prevalence of the disorder. Thus, we aimed to identify the cutoff points of the Persian original version of the personality inventory for DSM‐5 (PID‐5; 220 items) that would optimally distinguish nonclinical from clinical groups.MethodsBoth nonclinical (N = 634, 73% female, 34.0 ± 10.8 years) and clinical (N = 454, 29% female, 29.5 ± 7.4 years) samples from the West of Iran participated in the study. Data were analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and Youden's index was used to determine the cutoff scores across the PID‐5 domains and facets. The means and standard deviations of both the clinical male and female were compared with the nonclinical group using Cohen's d and independent t‐tests.ResultsAll the PID‐5 algorithms and facets significantly distinguished clinical from nonclinical samples with some unique findings for male and female samples. The mean score of all the PID‐5 algorithms and facets in the clinical male and female samples were respectively 1.0−2.0 SD and 0.5−1.0 SD above the mean for the nonclinical counterparts. A score higher than 1.5 on ranging from 0 to 3 in each domain or facet indicated clinical status.ConclusionRaw cutting scores throughout the PID‐5 algorithms can be well used to diagnose any pathology of personality and the severity of the disorder in clinical patients. The cut scores provide a useful tool for the clinical use of the original version of PID‐5 in Iran.

show abstract

“…The third section of DSM‐5 introduced an Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) that includes Criteria A and B (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Widiger & Hines, 2022; Zimmermann et al, 2019). Criterion A is used to evaluate self and other functioning, whereas Criterion B is used to evaluate 25 maladaptive personality traits and five higher‐order domains including Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism (Clark & Watson, 2022; Sharp & Miller, 2022). This structure is very similar to the ICD‐11 trait model, which consists of both personality functioning and five maladaptive domains, including Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Anankastia (Bach et al, 2022; Mulder, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Replicability of the five‐factor structure of DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 trait systems and their associations with binge eating and bipolar spectrum psychopathology

Vaysi,

Nazarpour,

Kiani

et al. 2023

Personality & Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the research on contemporary personality models—and psychopathology—mainly originate from the Western world, we aimed to test the factorial structure of two trait systems assessed with the Personality Inventory for DSM‐5 (PID‐5) in a non‐Western sample and to compare the extracted models' relative associations with binge eating disorder (BED) and bipolar spectrum disorder (BSD) symptoms. A community sample (N = 516; 72% female) was administered the PID‐5, which can operationalize both the DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 systems. The factor structures of both systems were tested using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). The congruence coefficients of all factor loadings with international studies were calculated. The Binge Eating Scale (BES), Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS), and Hypomania Checklist‐32‐Revised (HCL‐32) were used to measure the criterion variables. Linear regression models were used for comparing the DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 systems in predicting the BED and BSD. The findings supported five‐factor solutions for both trait systems. Both systems significantly predicted dimensional measures of both BED and BSD (all p < 0.001). The present findings support an acceptable five‐factor structure for both personality systems in the non‐Western sample. Different algorithms of maladaptive domains on both systems are related to binge eating and bipolar spectrum psychopathology.

show abstract

Ten-year retrospective on the DSM–5 alternative model of personality disorder: Seeing the forest for the trees.

Cited by 17 publications

References 25 publications

Prevalence of the alternative model of personality disorders diagnoses in populational and at-risk samples, gender and age groups comparisons, and normative data for the LPFS-SR and PID-5.

Prevalence of the alternative model of personality disorders diagnoses in populational and at-risk samples, gender and age groups comparisons, and normative data for the LPFS-SR and PID-5.

Clinical cut scores for the Persian version of the personality inventory for DSM‐5

Replicability of the five‐factor structure of DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 trait systems and their associations with binge eating and bipolar spectrum psychopathology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About