Refining the Phenotype of Borderline Personality Disorder: Diagnostic Criteria and Beyond

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, USA.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment (Impact Factor: 3.54). 07/2012; 3(3):228-46. DOI: 10.1037/a0027953
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a heterogeneous disorder, and previous analyses have parsed its phenotype in terms of subtypes or underlying traits. We refined the BPD construct by testing a range of latent variable models to ascertain whether BPD is composed of traits, latent classes, or both. We also tested whether subtypes of BPD could be distinguished by anger, aggressiveness, antisocial behavior, and mis-trustfulness, additional putative indicators drawn from Kernberg's (1967, 1975) theory of BPD. In a mixed clinical and nonclinical sample (N = 362), a factor mixture model consisting of two latent classes (symptomatic and asymptomatic) and a single severity dimension fit the BPD criteria, as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), data better than latent class or factor analytic approaches. In the second analytic phase, finite mixture modeling of the symptomatic latent class (n = 100) revealed four BPD subtypes: angry/aggressive, angry/mistrustful, poor identity/low anger, and prototypical. Our results support a hybrid categorical-dimensional model of the BPD DSM-IV criteria. The BPD subtypes emerging from this model have important implications for treatment and etiological research.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The process of constructing the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) has concluded, with the manual published in May 2013. In this article, I review the evolution of personality disorders (PDs) in DSM-5 from my perspective as a participating workgroup member, and as an observer of the DSM-5 construction process. I emphasize well-documented shortcomings of the fourth edition of the DSM (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), the diversity of potential changes to PD conceptualization and diagnosis that were proposed during the construction of DSM-5, and the final outcome, which consists of reproducing DSM-IV PD criteria in Section II of DSM-5 (diagnostic criteria and codes), while also printing a complete parallel PD system in Section III (emerging measures and models), with the idea of moving elements of the Section III material to Section II as DSM evolves (e.g., in DSM-5.1). Perhaps the PD field is too fractious to arrive at a consensus approach at this juncture, but, in addition, the current situation shows how the PD field is arguably the most forward-thinking area in contemporary psychopathology. This is because many PD scholars do not accept the inadequate polythetic-categorical approach to psychopathology classification of DSM-IV (which, owing to conservative political forces, also frames Section II of DSM-5). PD research is therefore at the vanguard in conceptualizing, studying, and treating psychopathology because it is not slavishly tethered to the DSM, and its approach to defining mental disorder through political processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 10/2013; 4(4):355-62. DOI:10.1037/per0000028 · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined the factor structure of borderline personality disorder (BPD) symptoms by using a multimethod, multisample approach. The factorial structure of BPD has previously been examined through the lens of broad retrospective reports of symptoms without directly contrasting results from different samples of participants, with studies producing inconsistent patterns of results. We go beyond previous work by examining symptoms from multiple timeframes and by examining results across and within 2 diagnostic groups-individuals with and without BPD. Participants (n = 281) completed a structured clinical interview for personality disorders, 2 weekly reports of BPD symptoms, and 2 weeks of in-the-moment "immediate" symptom reports, assessed 5 times daily. Across all participants, results revealed a robust 1-factor structure that replicated across all assessment methods. Moreover, these results replicated within each diagnostic group, with the lone exception of an unclear structure in interview assessment among participants who had a BPD diagnosis. Results have implications regarding the nature, assessment, and treatment of BPD. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 10/2014; 5(4):380-389. DOI:10.1037/per0000086 · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Determine the structure of depressive symptoms among adolescents and older adults through the person-centered approach of latent class analysis (LCA). The study is based on data from two independent samples collected in Mexico City (2,444 adolescents and 2,223 older adults) which included the revised version of the CES-D. The presence or absence of depressed mood (dysphoria), diminished pleasure (anhedonia), drastic change in weight, sleep problems, thinking and concentration difficulties, excessive or inappropriate guilt, fatigue, psychomotor agitation/retardation, and suicide ideation were used in LCA to determine the structure of depressive symptoms for adolescents and older adults. Adolescents reported higher excessive or inappropriate guilt compared to older adults, while older adults had higher proportions of anhedonia, sleep problems, fatigue, and psychomotor agitation/retardation. Similar proportions were found in other symptoms. The LCA analysis showed the best fit with four latent classes (LC): LC 1, "symptoms suggestive of major depressive episode (MDE)" with prevalence of 5.9 % (n = 144) and 10.3 % (n = 230) among adolescents and older adults, respectively; LC 2, "probable MDE symptoms" 18.2 % (n = 446) and 23.0 % (n = 512); LC 3, "possible MDE" 27.7 % (n = 676) and 21.8 % (n = 485); LC 4, "without significant depressive symptoms" 48.2 % (n = 1,178) and 44.8 % (n = 996). The differences in item thresholds between the two groups (adolescents vs. older adults) were statistically significant (Wald test = 255.684, df = 1, p < 0.001). This study documented important similarities and differences in the structure of depressive symptoms between adolescents and older adults that merit acknowledgment, further study, and consideration of their potential clinical and public health implications.
    Social Psychiatry 02/2014; 49(6). DOI:10.1007/s00127-014-0828-x · 2.58 Impact Factor