Article

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

Norwegian Institute of Public Health and University of Oslo, Norway.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.15). 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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Kristian Tambs
  • Source
    • "Relatedly, additional validation work in relation to treatment course and outcomes could help facilitate the development of tailored prevention and intervention programs. From a structural perspective, the close relationship between PTSD and internalizing disorders adds to a nascent literature suggesting that PTSD should be located within the internalizing dimension (e.g., Cox et al., 2002; Eaton et al., 2011; Keyes et al., 2013; Røysamb, et al., 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) literature is replete with investigations of factor structure, however, few empirical studies have examined discriminant validity and the moderating role of gender on factor structure and symptom expression. This study aimed to address these gaps. Methods: An online, population-based study of 3175 Australian adults was conducted. This study analyzed data from 642 participants who reported a traumatic event. Overall, 10.2% (13.4% females, 7.6% males) met diagnostic criteria for current PTSD. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that eight factor models provided excellent fit to the data. The DSM-5 model, anhedonia and hybrid models provided strong fit to the data, based on statistical fit indices and parsimony. The models' factors were significantly associated with a number of external correlates. Factor structure was gender invariant for the three models, albeit significant latent mean-level differences were apparent in relation to the intrusion/re-experiencing and alterations in arousal and reactivity factors. Bonferroni-adjusted Wald chi-square tests indicated significant gender differences in four DSM-5 PTSD symptoms: females reported significantly higher rates of negative beliefs, diminished interest, restricted affect and sleep disturbance symptoms compared to men. Limitations: Response rate to the survey was low. However, the number of respondents who completed the survey was high and population weights were employed to account for self-selection biases and aid generalizability. Conclusions: The findings provide support for the DSM-5, anhedonia and hybrid models compared to alternative models based on DSM-5 symptoms. Discriminant validity analyses indicated similar patterns of significant associations with the transdiagnostic factors, potentially suggesting that all the PTSD factors are related to non-specific distress. Further research investigating how gender influences PTSD symptom expression is warranted, including possible gender differences in symptom item interpretation.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2015 · Journal of Affective Disorders
  • Source
    • " biologi - cal predispositions , the CAPS model emphasizes the substantial influence that biogenetic factors can have at all lev - els of analysis . Indeed , there is an empirical basis for evaluat - ing the biogenetic underpinning of personality and related psychopathology , particularly with regard to Axis II disorders ( DeYoung et al . , 2010 ; Røysamb et al . , 2011 ; South & DeYoung , 2013 ) . More specifically , there is growing evidence for the interaction of biological influences on personality with developmental experiences or contexts ( Bornovalova et al . , 2013 ; Cicchetti , Rogosch , Hecht , Crick , & Hetzel , 2014 ; Dis - tel et al . , 2011 ; Krueger et al . , 2002 ) . One such line of re"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Cognitive-Affective Processing System (CAPS) is a dynamic and expansive model of personality proposed by Mischel and Shoda (1995) that incorporates dispositional and processing frameworks by considering the interaction of the individual and the situation, and the patterns of variation that result. These patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior are generally defined through the use of if … then statements, and provide a rich understanding of the individual across varying levels of assessment. In this article, we describe the CAPS model and articulate ways in which it can be applied to conceptualizing and assessing personality pathology. We suggest that the CAPS model is an ideal framework that integrates a number of current theories of personality pathology, and simultaneously overcomes a number of limits that have been empirically identified in the past.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2015 · Journal of Personality Assessment
  • Source
    • "Borderline PD has been found to be associated with both internalizing (e.g., Gunderson et al., 2004; Gunderson et al., 2008; Koenigsberg et al., 1999; Luca, Luca, & Calandra, 2012) and externalizing disorders (e.g., Røysamb et al., 2011; Stepp, Trull, & Sher, 2005). Consequently, although it is not purely an externalizing disorder, borderline PD can be considered " multifactorial " in its associations with other disorders (Eaton et al., 2011; Røysamb et al., 2011) and might, hence, uniquely predict the course of externalizing pathology. With regard to schizotypal PD, its consistent association with the persistence of SUDs is somewhat surprising, given the relative scarcity of research suggesting a unique association between these disorders. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to examine whether published findings regarding the association of personality disorders (PDs) with the persistence of substance use disorders (SUDs) are attributable to an artifact due to time of assessment of the PD. Two previous studies analyzed data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) and found that Antisocial PD, Schizotypal PD, and Borderline PD are unique predictors of SUDs. However, a design limitation in NESARC (assessment of PDs at different waves) can potentially compromise these findings. To assess the influence of time of assessment of PDs and to identify associations that might be robust to time of assessment, we compared the association of PDs with 2 estimates of SUD persistence that were based on different populations at risk: (a) among those who were diagnosed with SUD at baseline, the proportion who continued to meet full criteria at follow-up ("prediction"); and (b) among those who were diagnosed with SUD at follow-up, the proportion who met full criteria at baseline ("postdiction"). Differences between prediction and postdiction revealed a robust pattern of higher odds ratios for postdiction among PDs assessed at baseline, and lower odds ratios for postdiction among PDs assessed at follow-up. All published significant associations between PDs and persistence of SUDs became nonsignificant in the postdiction analyses, with the exception of obsessive-compulsive PD predicting nicotine dependence persistence. The present results raise serious doubts about the validity of published findings on PDs and SUD persistence from the NESARC. Design limitations in NESARC preclude a direct comparison among PDs measured at different waves. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2014 · Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Show more