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.

13 Followers
 · 
244 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Psychiatric co-morbidity is extensive in both psychiatric settings and the general population. Such co-morbidity challenges whether DSM-based mental disorders serve to effectively carve nature at its joints. In response, a substantial literature has emerged showing that a small number of broad dimensions - internalizing, externalizing and psychoticism - can account for much of the observed covariation among common mental disorders. However, the location of personality disorders within this emerging metastructure has only recently been studied, and no studies have yet examined where pathological personality traits fit within such a broad metastructural framework. We conducted joint structural analyses of common mental disorders, personality disorders and pathological personality traits in a sample of 628 current or recent psychiatric out-patients. Bridging across the psychopathology and personality trait literatures, the results provide evidence for a robust five-factor metastructure of psychopathology, including broad domains of symptoms and features related to internalizing, disinhibition, psychoticism, antagonism and detachment. These results reveal evidence for a psychopathology metastructure that (a) parsimoniously accounts for much of the observed covariation among common mental disorders, personality disorders and related personality traits, and (b) provides an empirical basis for the organization and classification of mental disorder.
    Psychological Medicine 04/2015; DOI:10.1017/S0033291715000252 · 5.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A considerable body of research has rapidly accumulated with respect to the validity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) dimensional trait model as it is assessed by the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012). This research though has not focused specifically on discriminant validity, although allusions to potentially problematic discriminant validity have been raised. The current study addressed discriminant validity, reporting for the first time the correlations among the PID-5 domain scales. Also reported are the bivariate correlations of the 25 PID-5 maladaptive trait scales with the personality domain scales of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the International Personality Item Pool-NEO (Goldberg et al., 2006), the Inventory of Personal Characteristics (Almagor et al., 1995), the 5-Dimensional Personality Test (van Kampen, 2012), and the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (Lee & Ashton, 2004). The results are discussed with respect to the implications of and alternative explanations for potentially problematic discriminant validity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 04/2015; DOI:10.1037/per0000118 · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • 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