Article

Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5

Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Psychological Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.43). 12/2011; 42(9):1879-90. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291711002674
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT DSM-IV-TR suggests that clinicians should assess clinically relevant personality traits that do not necessarily constitute a formal personality disorder (PD), and should note these traits on Axis II, but DSM-IV-TR does not provide a trait model to guide the clinician. Our goal was to provide a provisional trait model and a preliminary corresponding assessment instrument, in our roles as members of the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Workgroup and workgroup advisors.
An initial list of specific traits and domains (broader groups of traits) was derived from DSM-5 literature reviews and workgroup deliberations, with a focus on capturing maladaptive personality characteristics deemed clinically salient, including those related to the criteria for DSM-IV-TR PDs. The model and instrument were then developed iteratively using data from community samples of treatment-seeking participants. The analytic approach relied on tools of modern psychometrics (e.g. item response theory models).
A total of 25 reliably measured core elements of personality description emerged that, together, delineate five broad domains of maladaptive personality variation: negative affect, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism.
We developed a maladaptive personality trait model and corresponding instrument as a step on the path toward helping users of DSM-5 assess traits that may or may not constitute a formal PD. The inventory we developed is reprinted in its entirety in the Supplementary online material, with the goal of encouraging additional refinement and development by other investigators prior to the finalization of DSM-5. Continuing discussion should focus on various options for integrating personality traits into DSM-5.

11 Followers
 · 
233 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The assessment of personality in pathologic levels is a field that requires investment. This study aimed to review the Dependency Dimension of the Dimensional Clinical Personality Inventory (IDCP). The study was conducted through the development of new items based on the literature, and by investigating the psychometric properties in a sample of 199 participants, aged between 18 and 54 years (M = 26.37, SD = 8.13), 71.4% female, who responded to the IDCP, the NEO-PI-R, and the PID-5. The first step resulted in 57 items that were tested psychometrically. Then, the dimension remained with 18 items, with internal consistency of .89, and three factors: Self-devaluation, Avoidance of abandonment, and Insecurity, with internal consistency between .79 and .91. The expected correlations coefficients were found between the Dependency dimension and the correlated dimensions and facets of the NEO-PI-R and PID-5. The results evidence the adequacy of the revised dimension.
    Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto) 03/2015; 25(60):57-65. DOI:10.1590/1982-43272560201508
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined symptom-level relations between the emotional disorders and general traits within the five-factor model of personality. Neuroticism correlated strongly with the general distress/negative affectivity symptoms (depressed mood, anxious mood, worry) that are central to these disorders; more moderately with symptoms of social phobia, affective lability, panic, posttraumatic stress disorder, lassitude, checking, and obsessive intrusions; and more modestly with agoraphobia, specific phobia, and other symptoms of depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Extraversion was negatively correlated with symptoms of social anxiety/social phobia and was positively related to scales assessing expansive positive mood and increased social engagement in bipolar disorder. Conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness showed weaker associations and generally added little to the prediction of these symptoms. It is noteworthy, moreover, that our key findings replicated well across (a) self-rated versus (b) interview-based symptom measures. We conclude by discussing the diagnostic and assessment implications of these data.
    07/2014; 2(4):422-442. DOI:10.1177/2167702614536162
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review synthesizes a wide literature on the agreement of treating clinicians’ PD diagnoses with each other and their convergence with common research methods. Median interrater reliability between clinicians was moderate when calculated dimensionally (r = .46) or categorically (κ = .40). The agreement between clinicians’ diagnoses and those from research methods (e.g., self-report questionnaire) was more modest. Median dimensional agreement across 27 studies ranged from .05 to .36, with an overall median of .23. This overall value was moderated by several factors. First, clinicians’ diagnoses agreed more with semi-structured interviews than self-report questionnaires. Second, convergence increased slightly when clinicians utilized more systematic diagnostic methods. Results suggest relatively little overlap between PD diagnoses assigned in research versus naturalistic settings.
    Clinical Psychology Science and Practice 03/2015; 22(1). DOI:10.1111/cpsp.12088 · 2.92 Impact Factor