Article

The joint structure of DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders.

Norwegian Institute of Public Health and University of Oslo, Norway.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology (Impact Factor: 4.86). 02/2011; 120(1):198-209. DOI: 10.1037/a0021660
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (4th ed. [DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) distinction between clinical disorders on Axis I and personality disorders on Axis II has become increasingly controversial. Although substantial comorbidity between axes has been demonstrated, the structure of the liability factors underlying these two groups of disorders is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to determine the latent factor structure of a broad set of common Axis I disorders and all Axis II personality disorders and thereby to identify clusters of disorders and account for comorbidity within and between axes. Data were collected in Norway, through a population-based interview study (N = 2,794 young adult twins). Axis I and Axis II disorders were assessed with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP-IV), respectively. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to investigate the underlying structure of 25 disorders. A four-factor model fit the data well, suggesting a distinction between clinical and personality disorders as well as a distinction between broad groups of internalizing and externalizing disorders. The location of some disorders was not consistent with the DSM-IV classification; antisocial personality disorder belonged primarily to the Axis I externalizing spectrum, dysthymia appeared as a personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder appeared in an interspectral position. The findings have implications for a meta-structure for the DSM.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
126 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimsTo determine comorbidity patterns in treatment-seeking substance use disorder (SUD) patients with and without adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with an emphasis on subgroups defined by ADHD subtype, taking into account differences related to gender and primary substance of abuse. DesignData were obtained from the cross-sectional International ADHD in Substance use disorder Prevalence (IASP) study. SettingForty-seven centres of SUD treatment in 10 countries. ParticipantsA total of 1205 treatment-seeking SUD patients. MeasurementsStructured diagnostic assessments were used for all disorders: presence of ADHD was assessed with the Conners' Adult ADHD Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV (CAADID), the presence of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), major depression (MD) and (hypo)manic episode (HME) was assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Plus (MINI Plus), and the presence of borderline personality disorder (BPD) was assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II (SCID II). FindingsThe prevalence of DSM-IV adult ADHD in this SUD sample was 13.9%. ASPD [odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.8–4.2], BPD (OR = 7.0, 95% CI = 3.1–15.6 for alcohol; OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.8–6.4 for drugs), MD in patients with alcohol as primary substance of abuse (OR = 4.1, 95% CI = 2.1–7.8) and HME (OR = 4.3, 95% CI = 2.1–8.7) were all more prevalent in ADHD+ compared with ADHD− patients (P < 0.001). These results also indicate increased levels of BPD and MD for alcohol compared with drugs as primary substance of abuse. Comorbidity patterns differed between ADHD subtypes with increased MD in the inattentive and combined subtype (P < 0.01), increased HME and ASPD in the hyperactive/impulsive (P < 0.01) and combined subtypes (P < 0.001) and increased BPD in all subtypes (P < 0.001) compared with SUD patients without ADHD. Seventy-five per cent of ADHD patients had at least one additional comorbid disorder compared with 37% of SUD patients without ADHD. Conclusions Treatment-seeking substance use disorder patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are at a very high risk for additional externalizing disorders.
    Addiction 02/2014; 109(2). · 4.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: According to the proposal of the general factor of personality (GFP), socially desirable personality traits have been selected for throughout evolution because they increase fitness. However, it remains unknown whether people high on this factor actually behave in socially desirable ways or whether they simply endorse traits of positive valence. We separated these two sources of variance by having 619 participants respond to 120 personality adjectives organised into 30 quadruples balanced for content and valence (e.g. unambitious, easy-going, driven and workaholic tapped the trait achievement-striving). An exploratory six-factor solution fit well, and the factors resembled the Big Five. We subsequently extracted a higher-order factor from this solution, which appeared similar to the GFP. A Schmid–Leiman transformation of the higher-order factor, however, revealed that it clustered items of similar valence but opposite content (e.g. at the negative pole, unambitious and workaholic), rendering it an implausible description of evolved adaptive behaviour. Isolating this evaluative factor using exploratory structural equation modelling generated factors consisting of items of similar descriptive content but different valence (e.g. driven and workaholic), and the correlations among these factors were of small magnitude, indicating that the putative GFP capitalises primarily on evaluative rather than descriptive variance. Implications are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    European Journal of Personality 05/2012; 26(3). · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose Classification is the cornerstone of clinical diagnostic practice and research. However, the extant psychiatric classification systems are not well supported by research evidence. In particular, extensive comorbidity among putatively distinct disorders flags an urgent need for fundamental changes in how we conceptualize psychopathology. Over the past decade, research has coalesced on an empirically based model that suggests many common mental disorders are structured according to two correlated latent dimensions: internalizing and externalizing. Methods We review and discuss the development of a dimensional-spectrum model which organizes mental disorders in an empirically based manner. We also touch upon changes in the DSM-5 and put forward recommendations for future research endeavors. Results Our review highlights substantial empirical support for the empirically based internalizing–externalizing model of psychopathology, which provides a parsimonious means of addressing comorbidity. Conclusions As future research goals, we suggest that the field would benefit from: expanding the meta-structure of psychopathology to include additional disorders, development of empirically based thresholds, inclusion of a developmental perspective, and intertwining genomic and neuroscience dimensions with the empirical structure of psychopathology.
    Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 01/2015; 50(3). · 2.58 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
66 Downloads
Available from
Jun 5, 2014