Validation of the Persian Translation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale—Self-Report (LPFS-SR): Comparison of College Students and Patients with Personality Disorders

Hemmati, Azad; Morey, Leslie C.; McCredie, Morgan N.; Rezaei, Farzin; Nazari, Amin; Rahmani, Fateh

doi:10.1007/s10862-019-09775-6

Cited by 15 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that the strongest relations were observed between the LPFS-SR total and PID5BF + M total corroborate the evidence that regards the LPFS-SR construct as a single dimension of personality pathology, and questions its ability to capture deficits in identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy (20,(42)(43)(44)(45)(46). Considering that these results appear to support the LPFS-SR's one-dimensionality, a controversial issue for Criterion A's opponents (23), they may also offer a modest contribution to the constructive discussion regarding the strengths and limitations of Criterion A (24).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Bridging the ICD11 and the DSM-5 personality disorders classification systems: The role of the PID5BF + M

Pires

Henriques-Calado²,

Ferreira³

et al. 2023

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn both the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) personality disorders (PD) are characterized by impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning which distinguish the various levels of dysfunction. Moreover, pathological traits are used by these classification systems to define the stylistic expression of personality dysfunction. Negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition feature as trait domains in each of these models. However, there are also differences between the two models, namely, in the psychoticism domain, which does not feature as a personality trait domain in the ICD-11, and in the anankastia domain, corresponding to compulsivity in the DSM-5, which was removed from the final AMPD model. Furthermore, facets are acknowledged by the DSM-5 within each trait domain, while this does not occur in the ICD-11. In view of the similarity between these classification systems, their harmonization would be beneficial for the clinical profession. With this goal in mind, the PID5BF + M, an algorithm that assesses the DSM-5 and ICD-11 six trait domains and 18 facets, was developed and has proven to adequately characterize the ICD-11 trait domains by means of DSM-5 trait facets.MethodsThe current study compares a community sample (N = 280, Mage = 48.01, 53.2% females) with a PD sample (N = 131, Mage = 42.66, 45.0% females) along with the PID5BF + M, the LPFS-SR and the PID-5. Given that the PID5BF + M total can be seen as a measure of the level of personality dysfunction, strong relations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total are expected. Strong relations between the trait specifiers measured by the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 are also expected. Finally, the community and clinical samples are expected to differentiate by means of the dimensions assessed through the three afore-mentioned measures. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of associations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total and between the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 traits. Group differences were explored using the Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples.ResultsAs expected, there were strong, significant, and positive relations between the measures. Furthermore, higher scores were observed in all the variables for the PD group against the community group.DiscussionAlthough this study has limitations, its findings sustain that the PID5BF + M has potential to assess the severity of personality disfunction and to characterize the stylistic features of PD as they are conceived by both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Although more research is needed regarding the convergent validity of the PID5BF + M, this new test contributes to the harmonization of both systems and to parsimony in the assessment of PD, which is the main objective of clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Bridging the ICD11 and the DSM-5 personality disorders classification systems: The role of the PID5BF + M

Pires

Henriques-Calado²,

Ferreira³

et al. 2023

Front. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The LPFS-SR is an 80-item self-report measure that is strongly correlated with other global measures of personality impairment (Morey, 2017). The LPFS-SR is associated with interpersonal problems and personality disorders, and is also strongly correlated with normal range personality traits (rs ranging around .5) and pathological personality traits (rs = .6-.7; Hopwood et al, 2018; see also Hemmati et al, 2020). Higher LPFS-SR at baseline was significantly associated with greater daily experiences of negative affect, stress, and invalidation (Heiland et al, in press).…”

Section: Lpfs-self Report (Lpfs-sr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Measures of Criterion A to Better Understand Incremental Validity in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Roche

Jaweed

2021

Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders distinguishes between the severity of personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and individual differences in personality disorder expression (Criterion B). Several Criterion A measures exist, but few studies have compared these measures with each other. Moreover, debates about whether the constructs of Criteria A and B are redundant (i.e., weak incremental validity) should be framed around how different Criterion A measures perform relative to others. This study of 204 undergraduate students evaluated multiple measures of Criterion A. These measures were strongly correlated with Criterion B, but evidenced incremental validity (39% of outcomes, 5% average additional variance explained) with outcomes of psychopathology and interpersonal impairments, and less consistent incremental validity with suicidality, aggression, and mental health utilization. We discuss how these results inform the construct of Criterion A relative to Criterion B and evaluate strengths/weaknesses of Criterion A measures.

show abstract

“…With respect to studies using self-report questionnaires for the LPFS, the CM/UG studies always used the LPFS-SR and clinical studies the LPFS-BF, with the exception of the clinical subsample of Hemmati et al (2020). The LPFS-SR consists of 80 questions that aim at assessing all aspects of the LPFS, whereas the LPFS-BF includes only 12 questions, which may make it difficult to capture the entire range of personality functioning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the alternative model for personality disorders able to capture avoidant personality disorder according to Section II of the DSM–5? A systematic review.

Hummelen

Eikenæs

Wilberg

2022

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review aims at examining the continuity between the categorical model for personality disorders (PDs) as defined by Section II of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, and the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) with respect to Section II avoidant personality disorder (AvPD). Because the Criterion A of the AMPD, that is, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), is a prerequisite for a PD diagnosis, only studies assessing the LPFS were included, whether or not the Criterion B, that is, pathological personality traits, were assessed as well. A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 6 studies comprising community/undergraduate samples and 7 studies comprising clinical samples. Weighted correlation between global LPFS and AvPD was .39 (rw = .55 for community/undergraduate studies; rw =.17 for clinical studies). When AvPD-specific impairment was evaluated, that is, impairment of personality functioning characterizing AvPD in the AMPD, correlations were substantially larger. In studies using regression analyses, the Criterion B appeared to have incremental utility in predicting the presence of Section II AvPD. To capture Section II AvPD in a sufficient degree by the AMPD, it might be necessary to use an AvPD-specific impairment questionnaire.

show abstract

Validation of the Persian Translation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale—Self-Report (LPFS-SR): Comparison of College Students and Patients with Personality Disorders

Cited by 15 publications

References 61 publications

Bridging the ICD11 and the DSM-5 personality disorders classification systems: The role of the PID5BF + M

Bridging the ICD11 and the DSM-5 personality disorders classification systems: The role of the PID5BF + M

Comparing Measures of Criterion A to Better Understand Incremental Validity in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Is the alternative model for personality disorders able to capture avoidant personality disorder according to Section II of the DSM–5? A systematic review.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About