The Incremental Utility of Criteria A and B of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders for Predicting DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorders.

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) includes two main criteria: moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and the presence of one or more pathological personality traits (Criterion B). The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental utility of Criteria A and B for predicting DSM-5 Section II personality disorders (PD). The sample (N = 317) consisted of three well-defined groups: non-clinical participants (n = 35), psychiatric patients with PD (n = 193), and without PD (n = 83). All were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I): Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Logistic regression analyses showed that the SCID-5-AMPD-I could predict the presence of PDs in general, and the three specific PDs that were investigated (i.e., Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs). The PID-5 domains enhanced prediction of the specific PDs, but not the presence of PDs in general, when entered in the second step. Our results support the AMPD model: Criterion A predicted the presence of DSM-5 Section II PDs in general, whereas measures of Criterion B incremented prediction of Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs.

Criterion A: Level of personality functioning in the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders.

Criterion A, as represented by Level of Personality Functioning (LPF), offers a means by which to conceptualize the core impairment in self and interpersonal functioning that distinguishes personality disorder (PD) from other forms of psychopathology. One of the most widely cited criticisms of the current Section II in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition categorical diagnostic system is the high level of comorbidity among the categorical PD diagnoses. The Section III alternative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition model for PDs (AMPD) addresses this problem by assessing the commonalities of the PDs using a single severity continuum, represented in the AMPD by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), which comprises both self and interpersonal pathology. Since its initial introduction, the LPFS has generated an expansive literature base and has also seen significant advancements in its measurement, including both semistructured and self-report methods. Such studies have generally demonstrated that the LPFS can be rated reliably, across both experienced and inexperienced raters, and demonstrates strong validity as evidenced by associations with relevant criterion variables and demonstrations of predictive and clinical utility. This review offers a brief history of the conceptualization and development of Criterion A and the LPFS, describes the major advancements in its measurement, and provides a summary of the status of the empirical literature regarding Criterion A's structure, reliability, and validity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Level of personality functioning as a predictor of psychosocial functioning-Concurrent validity of criterion A.

The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), defines personality functioning by assessment of impairment in Identity and Self-direction (Self component) and in Empathy and Intimacy (Interpersonal). These four domains constitute the Level of Personality Functioning Scale, a trans-diagnostic measure of PD severity. The association between the Level of Personality Functioning Scale and psychosocial impairment based on other previously established psychosocial functioning instruments has not been reported. A total of 317 individuals, including a representative clinical sample of 282 patients (192 with a personality disorder [PD] diagnosis), was evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 AMPD Module I. Self-reported impairment was measured by the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), and social and occupational impairment was assessed by the functioning score of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF-F). WSAS and GAF-F both correlated significantly with mean LPFS scores and the sum of DSM-IV PD criteria. For both measures, the mean LPFS was a stronger predictor for psychosocial impairment than the sum of DSM-IV PD criteria. Within the LPFS, the Self component was a better predictor than the Interpersonal component for both WSAS and GAF-F. For the four domains, the results diverged, with Identity as the strongest predictor by far for WSAS. Empathy was the only significant predictor for impairment evaluated by GAF-F, but its contribution to variance was not substantial. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Evaluation of Diagnostic Thresholds for Criterion A in the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) was formulated to assess the presence and severity of personality disorders (PDs). Moderate impairment (Level 2) in personality functioning, as measured by the LPFS, was incorporated into the AMPD as a diagnostic threshold for PD in Criterion A of the general criteria, as well as for the "any two areas present" rule for assigning a specific PD diagnosis. This study represents the first evaluation of the diagnostic decision rules for Criterion A, in a clinical sample (N = 282). The results indicate that an overall diagnostic threshold for PDs should be used with caution because it may not identify all DSM-IV PDs. The "any two areas present" rule proved to be a reasonable alternative, although this finding should be interpreted with caution because the LPFS does not measure the disorder-specific A criteria.

Borderline personality disorder diagnosis in a new key.

BACKGROUND: Conceptualizations of personality disorders (PD) are increasingly moving towards dimensional approaches. The definition and assessment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in regard to changes in nosology are of great importance to theory and practice as well as consumers. We studied empirical connections between the traditional DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BPD and Criteria A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). METHOD: Raters of varied professional backgrounds possessing substantial knowledge of PDs (N = 20) characterized BPD criteria with the four domains of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and 25 pathological personality trait facets. Mean AMPD values of each BPD criterion were used to support a nosological cross-walk of the individual BPD criteria and study various combinations of BPD criteria in their AMPD translation. The grand mean AMPD profile generated from the experts was compared to published BPD prototypes that used AMPD trait ratings and the DSM-5-III hybrid categorical-dimensional algorithm for BPD. Divergent comparisons with DSM-5-III algorithms for other PDs and other published PD prototypes were also examined. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability analyses showed generally robust agreement. The AMPD profile for BPD criteria rated by individual BPD criteria was not isomorphic with whole-person ratings of BPD, although they were highly correlated. Various AMPD profiles for BPD were generated from theoretically relevant but differing configurations of BPD criteria. These AMPD profiles were highly correlated and showed meaningful divergence from non-BPD DSM-5-III algorithms and other PD prototypes. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that traditional DSM BPD diagnosis reflects a common core of PD severity, largely composed of LPFS and the pathological traits of anxiousness, depressively, emotional lability, and impulsivity. Results confirm the traditional DSM criterion-based BPD diagnosis can be reliably cross-walked with the full AMPD scheme, and both approaches share substantial construct overlap. This relative equivalence suggests the vast clinical and research literatures associated with BPD may be brought forward with DSM-5-III diagnosis of BPD.

Interrater Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module i: Level of Personality Functioning Scale.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) presents an alternative model for personality disorders in which severity of personality pathology is evaluated by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The Structured Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, Module I (SCID-5-AMPD I) is a new tool for LPFS assessment, but its interrater reliability (IRR) has not yet been tested. Here we examined the reliability of the Norwegian translation of the SCID-5-AMPD I, applying two different designs: IRR assessment based on ratings of 17 video-recorded SCID-5-AMPD I interviews by five raters; and test-retest IRR based on interviews of 33 patients administered by two different raters within a short interval. For the video-based investigation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged from .77 to .94 for subdomains, .89 to .95 for domains, and .96 for total LPFS. For the test-retest investigation, ICC ranged from .24 to .72 for subdomains, .59 to .90 for domains, and .75 for total LPFS. The test-retest study revealed questionable reliability estimates for some subdomains. However, overall the level of personality functioning was measured with a sufficient degree of IRR when assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD I.

Introduction to the Special Series on the Personality Functioning Component of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD; American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ) was created to remedy the previously well-explicated limitations of the categorical DSM-IV personality disorders. The AMPD combines dimensional assessments of personality functioning (Criterion A) and traits (Criterion B), which can be used independently or together, and serve as the basis for defining six categorical disorder options. The Criterion A Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) defines a continuum characterized by the four elements of identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. Empirical work related to the LPFS has been growing, and this Journal of Personality Assessment special series features reports from a variety of research groups around the world. These studies provide contributions for better understanding the reliability, validity, and utility of the LPFS, as well as describing new measures that have been created to investigate personality functioning.

Personality and life events in a personality disorder sample.

Individuals with a personality disorder (PD) tend to experience more negative life events (NLEs) than positive life events (PLEs). In community samples, the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM) predicts both positive and negative life events. The present research examined whether FFM normal personality traits were associated with positive and negative life events among individuals with 1 of 4 PDs: avoidant, borderline, schizotypal, and obsessive-compulsive, and tested whether associations between the FFM of personality and PLEs and NLEs were similar across the 4 PD groups and a control group. Among aggregated PDs, neuroticism was positively associated with NLEs, whereas extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness were positively associated with PLEs. Comparisons of each PD group to a control group of individuals with a major depressive disorder indicated that the FFM traits operated similarly across clinical samples with and without PD. Our findings indicate that normal personality traits can be used to help understand the lives of individuals with PD. (PsycINFO Database Record

Assessing DSM-5 level of personality functioning from videotaped clinical interviews: a pilot study with untrained and clinically inexperienced students.

Several authors have raised the concern that the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) is relatively complex and theory laden, and thus might put high requirements on raters. We addressed this concern by having 22 untrained and clinically inexperienced students assess the personality functioning of 10 female psychotherapy inpatients from videotaped clinical interviews, using a multi-item version of the LPFS. Individual raters' LPFS total scores showed acceptable interrater reliability, and were significantly associated with 2 distinct expert-rated measures of the severity of personality pathology. These findings suggest that, contrary to the previously mentioned concerns, successfully applying the LPFS to clinical cases might require neither extensive clinical experience nor training.

Narcissistic personality disorder in DSM-5.

The criteria for personality disorders in Section II of DSM-5 have not changed from those in DSM-IV. Therefore, the diagnosis of Section II narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) will perpetuate all of the well-enumerated shortcomings associated with the diagnosis since DSM-III. In this article, we will briefly review problems associated with Section II NPD and then discuss the evolution of a new model of personality disorder and the place in the model of pathological narcissism and NPD. The new model was intended to be the official approach to the diagnosis of personality pathology in DSM-5, but was ultimately placed as an alternative in Section III for further study. The new model is a categorical-dimensional hybrid based on the assessment of core elements of personality functioning and of pathological personality traits. The specific criteria for NPD were intended to rectify some of the shortcomings of the DSM-IV representation by acknowledging both grandiose and vulnerable aspects, overt and covert presentations, and the dimensionality of narcissism. In addition, criteria were assigned and diagnostic thresholds set based on empirical data. The Section III representation of narcissistic phenomena using dimensions of self and interpersonal functioning and relevant traits offers a significant improvement over Section II NPD.

Validating the proposed diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition, severity indicator for personality disorder.

The authors sought to determine whether a 5-point global rating of personality dysfunction on the Level of Personality Functioning Scale proposed as a severity index for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), would be related to DSM-IV personality disorder diagnosis as well as to other key clinical judgments. Data were collected from a national sample of 337 mental health clinicians who provided complete diagnostic information relevant to DSM-IV and proposed DSM-5 personality disorder diagnoses, as well as demographic information and other clinical judgments, on one of their patients. Of the 337 patients described, 248 met criteria for 1 of the 10 specific DSM-IV personality disorders. A "moderate" or greater rating of impairment in personality functioning on the Level Scale demonstrated 84.6% sensitivity and 72.7% specificity for identifying patients meeting criteria for a specific DSM-IV personality disorder. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale had significant and substantial validity correlations with other measures of personality pathology and with clinical judgments regarding functioning, risk, prognosis, and optimal treatment intensity. Furthermore, the single-item Level of Personality Functioning rating was viewed as being as clinically useful as the 10 DSM-IV categories for treatment planning and patient description and was a better predictor of clinician ratings of broad psychosocial functioning than were the 10 DSM-IV categories combined. These results confirm hypotheses that the single-item Level of Personality Functioning Scale rating provides an indication of severity of personality pathology that predicts both assignment of personality disorder diagnosis and clinician appraisals of functioning, risk, prognosis, and needed treatment intensity.

Socioeconomic-status and mental health in a personality disorder sample: the importance of neighborhood factors.

This cross-sectional study examined the associations between neighborhood-level socioeconomic-status (NSES), and psychosocial functioning and personality pathology among 335 adults drawn from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. Participants belonged to four personality disorder (PD) diagnostic groups: Avoidant, Borderline, Schizotypal, and Obsessive Compulsive. Global functioning, social adjustment, and PD symptoms were assessed following a minimum two-year period of residential stability. Residence in higherrisk neighborhoods was associated with more PD symptoms and lower levels of functioning and social adjustment. These relationships were consistent after controlling for individual-level socioeconomic-status and ethnicity; however, the positive association between neighborhood-level socio-economic risk and PD symptoms was evident only at higher levels of individual-level socio-economic risk. Our findings identify NSES as a candidate for explaining some of the variability in symptoms and functioning among PD individuals.

The ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5.

An alternative model for the diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs), based on assessments of impairments in personality functioning and of pathological personality traits, was intended for the official classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-5), but was instead placed in Section III, "Emerging Measures and Models." This article attempts to describe forces in play during the development of DSM-5 that may have contributed to this outcome, from the perspectives of the Chair of the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group (PPDWG) and three of its members. These include a failed imperative to shift away from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) categories toward a dimensional perspective on psychopathology, dynamics within the American Psychiatric Association DSM-5 Task Force and PPDWG and the roles and impact of individuals and groups in the PD community. From these considerations, we present some suggestions for how the field might move forward in the future. A new opportunity exists to use the proposed alternative model as a foundation for research. In the immediate future, with the existence of two different models of PDs in DSM-5, studies can be done comparing the models to each other and to other models with respect to reliability and antecedent, concurrent, and predictive validity. If the Section III model continues to perform as early studies suggest, it may migrate into Section II of a planned DSM-5.1. This valuable research, already underway, will shape future editions of the DSM, by providing data to articulate a clearer vision, with broader representation of reliable and valid models. Going forward, personal investments must be put aside for the benefit of the greater good.

When is it time to move on? Rejoinder for "the ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5".

Presents a rejoinder to comments by Silk (see record 2013-45025-005) and Zimmerman (see record 2013-45025-006) on the original article by Skodol et al. (see record 2013-45025-004) regarding personality disorders in the DSM-5. Here, Skodol et al. comment that many of the early decisions made by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) PPDWG and within the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group (PPDWG) noted in Silk's commentary should be viewed in light of the original goals of the DSM-5, which included a break from past practices of "tinkering" with categorical criteria. In the end, a compromise hybrid dimensional-categorical model-the favored option of most personality disorder (PD) experts-was developed and was published in DSM-5 Section III. The "alternative model" preserves continuity with current clinical practice while also addressing numerous shortcomings of the exclusively categorical approach to PDs. The personality functioning and pathological trait components of the revised general criteria and the criteria for the six specific disorders and PD-TS are based on extensive data on the core features of PDs and the trait representation of personality pathology. The final model's thresholds for diagnosis, its criteria composition, and its decision rules are based for the first time on empirical data, unlike the diagnostic thresholds and decision rules for DSM-IV (now also in DSM-5 Section II), which for the most part are unsubstantiated. Thus, Zimmerman's comments to the contrary, the Section III alternative model has a greater empirical basis than much of what is in Section II and holds more promise for the future.

Mirror, mirror on the wall: reflecting on narcissism.

This article introduces a special issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session focused on the conceptualization and treatment of narcissism. Obscured by an ongoing debate about how best to define pathological narcissism, clinicians have often lost sight of the fact that narcissistic investment in the self is a normal developmental trend that can be disturbed to varying degrees by environmental stresses and failures of nurturing. Using case presentations, contributing authors demonstrate the following: the importance of understanding the closely interrelated grandiosity and vulnerability associated with narcissistic difficulties; variation in the expression of narcissistic "types"; the role of perfectionism and sadomasochism; and the possibility that narcissistic issues are present across all types of personality psychopathology. Specific alliance-building recommendations are offered, and the greater utility of defining narcissism dimensionally rather than categorically is explored. A clinical case in the current article illustrates each of these central ideas. Together, the discussions presented in this issue invite greater insight into, and appreciation of, narcissistic phenomena, along with examples of effective and empathic treatment approaches.

Personality disorder types proposed for DSM-5.

The Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group has proposed five specific personality disorder (PD) types for DSM-5, to be rated on a dimension of fit: antisocial/psychopathic, avoidant, borderline, obsessive-compulsive, and schizotypal. Each type is identified by core impairments in personality functioning, pathological personality traits, and common symptomatic behaviors. The other DSM-IV-TR PDs and the large residual category of personality disorder not otherwise specified (PDNOS) will be represented solely by the core impairments combined with specification by individuals' unique sets of personality traits. This proposal has three main features: (1) a reduction in the number of specified types from 10 to 5; (2) description of the types in a narrative format that combines typical deficits in self and interpersonal functioning and particular configurations of traits and behaviors; and (3) a dimensional rating of the degree to which a patient matches each type. An explanation of these modifications in approach to diagnosing PD types and their justifications--including excessive co-morbidity among DSM-IV-TR PDs, limited validity for some existing types, lack of specificity in the definition of PD, instability of current PD criteria sets, and arbitrary diagnostic thresholds--are the subjects of this review.