-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
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.
Psychological Medicine 12/2011; 42(9):1879-90. · 6.16 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) shows high levels of co-morbidity with an array of psychiatric disorders. The meaning and causes of this co-morbidity are not fully understood. Our objective was to investigate and clarify the complex co-morbidity of BPD by integrating it into the structure of common mental disorders.
We conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses on diagnostic interview data from a representative US population-based sample of 34 653 civilian, non-institutionalized individuals aged ≥18 years. We modeled the structure of lifetime DSM-IV diagnoses of BPD and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, panic disorder with agoraphobia, social phobia, specific phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol dependence, nicotine dependence, marijuana dependence, and any other drug dependence.
In both women and men, the internalizing-externalizing structure of common mental disorders captured the co-morbidity among all disorders including BPD. Although BPD was unidimensional in terms of its symptoms, BPD as a disorder showed associations with both the distress subfactor of the internalizing dimension and the externalizing dimension.
The complex patterns of co-morbidity observed with BPD represent connections to other disorders at the level of latent internalizing and externalizing dimensions. BPD is meaningfully connected with liabilities shared with common mental disorders, and these liability dimensions provide a beneficial focus for understanding the co-morbidity, etiology and treatment of BPD.
Psychological Medicine 05/2011; 41(5):1041-50. · 6.16 Impact Factor
-
K E Markon
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Analyses of co-morbidity patterns among common mental disorders have repeatedly indicated that relationships among disorders can be understood in terms of broad superordinate dimensions. However, these analyses have been based on syndromal-level indicators, which are often heterogeneous, rather than on symptoms, which are presumably more homogeneous.
Symptom-level exploratory and confirmatory analyses were used to explore the joint hierarchical organization of Axis I and II psychopathology, using data on 8405 individuals from the 2000 British Psychiatric Morbidity Survey.
Analyses indicated that 20 identified subordinate dimensions of psychopathology could be organized into four broad superordinate dimensions: Internalizing, Externalizing, Thought Disorder, and Pathological Introversion.
These results extend existing model frameworks 'downward' as well as 'outward', by analyzing symptoms rather than diagnoses, and by integrating symptoms from Axis I and II disorders in a common framework. This model demonstrates the importance of hierarchy in psychopathology structure, comprises replicable features of psychopathology structure, and has important implications for understanding the nature and organization of mental disorders.
Psychological Medicine 07/2009; 40(2):273-88. · 6.16 Impact Factor
