Is dimensional scoring of borderline personality disorder important only for subthreshold levels of severity?

Journal of personality disorders (Impact Factor: 3.08). 04/2013; 27(2):244-51. DOI: 10.1521/pedi.2013.27.2.244
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Studies comparing dimensional and categorical representations of personality disorders (PDs) have consistently found that PD dimensions are more reliable and valid. While comparisons of dimensional and categorical scoring approaches have consistently favored the dimension model, two reports from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project have raised questions as to when dimensional scoring is important. In the first study, Asnaani, Chelminski, Young, and Zimmerman (2007) found that once the diagnostic threshold for borderline PD was reached the number of criteria met was not significantly associated with indices of psychosocial morbidity. In the second study, Zimmerman, Chelminski, Young, Dalrymple, and Martinez (2012) found that patients with 1 criterion of borderline PD had significantly more psychosocial morbidity than patients with 0 criteria. The findings of these two studies suggest that dimensional ratings of borderline PD may be more strongly associated with indicators of illness severity for patients who do not versus do meet the DSM-IV criteria for borderline PD. In this third report from the MIDAS project, we tested this hypothesis in a study of 3,069 psychiatric outpatients evaluated with semi-structured diagnostic interviews. In the patients without borderline PD the number of borderline features was significantly associated with each of 6 indicators of illness severity, whereas in the patients with borderline PD 3 of the 6 correlations were significant. The mean correlation between the number of borderline PD criteria and the indicators of illness severity was nearly three times higher in the patients without borderline PD than the patients with borderline PD (0.23 versus 0.08), and 4 of the 6 correlation coefficients were significantly higher in the patients without borderline PD. These findings suggest that dimensional scoring of borderline PD is more important for subthreshold levels of pathology and are less critical once a patient meets the diagnostic threshold. The implications of these findings for DSM-5 are discussed.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research assessing the utility of dimensional and categorical models of personality disorders (PDs) overwhelmingly supports the use of continuous over categorical models. Using borderline PD as an example, recent studies from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project suggested that continuous (criteria count) scoring of PDs is most informative for "subthreshold" levels of pathology, but is less important once a patient meets the diagnostic threshold. Using PD criteria count, the current study compared 7 indices of psychosocial morbidity for patients above and below diagnostic threshold for 3 additional PDs: paranoid, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive. Results showed that for all tested PDs, only number of current Axis I disorders was more correlated with PD criteria in the sub-threshold group as compared to those who met criteria for the disorder. Results for the remaining 6 indices of psychosocial morbidity varied by PD tested.
    Comprehensive psychiatry 02/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.01.008 · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a clinical trial to explore the relationship between degree of personality disorder (PD) pathology (i.e., number of subthreshold and threshold PD symptoms) and mood and functioning outcomes in Bipolar I Disorder (BD-I). Ninety-two participants completed baseline mood and functioning assessments and then underwent 4 months of treatment for an index manic, mixed, or depressed phase acute episode. Additional assessments occurred over a 28-month follow-up period. PD pathology did not predict psychosocial functioning or manic symptoms at 4 or 28 months. However, it did predict depressive symptoms at both timepoints, as well as percent time symptomatic. Clusters A and C pathology were most strongly associated with depression. Our findings fit with the literature highlighting the negative repercussions of PD pathology on a range of outcomes in mood disorders. This study builds upon previous research, which has largely focused on major depression and which has primarily taken a categorical approach to examining PD pathology in BD.
    Depression research and treatment 01/2014; 2014:816524. DOI:10.1155/2014/816524
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although early editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations, 2006) incorporated a broad array of psychodynamic concepts, the influence of psychoanalysis in the DSM series has waned with each successive revision. The depsychoanalyzing of the DSM had a number of negative effects (e.g., increased syndrome comorbidity, diminished clinical utility). This article discusses how psychoanalytic concepts—once central but now marginalized—have much to contribute to DSM-6. I examine several ways in which a psychodynamic perspective can enhance the diagnostic manual, and challenges that may arise when psychodynamic concepts are reintroduced. I then present a psychodynamically informed framework for diagnosis in DSM-6 and beyond, which incorporates information in 4 domains: (a) overall level of functioning, (b) symptoms and syndromes, (c) underlying dynamics (i.e., ego strength, defense style, object relations), and (d) contextualizing factors (i.e., culture, stress, resilience and adaptation). I note how key constructs can be operationalized by clinicians and clinical researchers, and how dynamic assessment data can be integrated with descriptive, symptom focused information to enhance diagnosis and facilitate treatment planning.
    Psychoanalytic Inquiry 01/2015; 35(sup1):45-59. DOI:10.1080/07351690.2015.987592 · 0.47 Impact Factor