Contrasting social knowledge and theory of mind patterns in adults with personality disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and healthy controls.

INTRODUCTION: Personality disorders (PD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) are distinct conditions displaying common symptoms, like impairments in social cognition, that make them hard to distinguish, especially in severe cases. To date, few studies have compared theory of mind skills in these two disorders, and none have compared social knowledge skills. This study aims to compare the social cognitive abilities of patients with these conditions. METHOD: Non-parametric analyses of covariance were used to compare severe PD patients (n = 37), SSD patients (n = 44), and healthy controls (HC; n = 49) on the Social Knowledge Test and two measures of theory of mind: the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test and the Combined Stories Test, which incorporates items from various widely used tests. RESULTS: While no significant group differences were found on the Social Knowledge Test, SSD patients performed lower than the HC group on both theory of mind tests. PD patients only had lower performance than the HC group on specific items from the Combined Stories Test. CONCLUSIONS: PD and SSD patients demonstrated distinctive patterns of social cognitive impairments, with items of greater complexity or with an affective orientation being the most discriminant for PD.

Profiles of theory of mind impairments and personality in clinical and community samples: integrating the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders.

Introduction: Deficits in theory of mind (ToM)-the ability to infer the mental states of others-have been linked to antagonistic traits in community samples. ToM deficits have also been identified in people with personality disorders (PD), although with conflicting evidence, partly due to the use of categorical diagnoses. The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) provides an opportunity for a more precise understanding of the interplay between ToM abilities and personality pathology. Therefore, the study aims to determine whether and how individuals with diverse ToM profiles differ regarding personality impairment (AMPD Criterion A) and pathological facets (AMPD Criterion B). Method: Adults with PD (n = 39) and from the community (n = 42) completed tests assessing ToM skills and self-reported questionnaires assessing AMPD Criteria A and B. Hierarchical agglomerative and TwoStep cluster analyses were consecutively computed using scores and subscores from ToM tests as clustering variables. Multivariate analyses of variance were subsequently performed to compare the clusters on both AMPD Criteria. Five clinically and conceptually meaningful clusters were found. The most notable differences across clusters were observed for Intimacy and Empathy dysfunctions (Criterion A), as well as for the Deceitfulness, Callousness, and Hostility facets from the Antagonism domain and the Restricted affectivity facet from the Detachment domain (Criterion B). Discussion: The results support the association between antagonistic personality facets and ToM deficits. However, clusters showing impairments in ToM abilities did not necessarily exhibit high levels of personality dysfunction or pathological facets, emphasizing that both constructs are not isomorphic. Nevertheless, specific profiles can help refine existing interventions to make them more sensitive and specific to the nature of ToM dysfunctions while considering personality functioning and facets.

Associations between the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 trait facets and aggression among outpatients with personality disorder: A multimethod study.

BACKGROUND: Most research on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) was conducted with self-reports. One of the specific areas for which a multimethod design has yet to be implemented is for the PID-5's associations with aggression. The main objectives of this study were to (a) compare the PID-5 associations with self-reported and file-rated aggression, (b) compare these associations between women and men, and (c) identify the relative importance of PID-5 facet predictors. METHODS: A sample of outpatients with personality disorder (N = 285) was recruited in a specialized public clinic to complete questionnaires, and a subsample was assessed for file-rated aggression (n = 227). Multiple regression analyses were performed with PID-5 facets as statistical predictors but using distinct operationalizations of aggression (self-reported vs. file-rated). Moderation analyses were performed to identify the moderating effect of biological sex. Dominance analyses were computed to identify the relative importance of predictors. RESULTS: PID-5 facet predictors of self-reported and file-rated aggression were very consistent in both conditions. However, the amount of explained variance was reduced in the latter case (from 39% to 14%), especially for women (from 40% to 2%). The most important predictors were Hostility, Risk Taking, and Callousness. CONCLUSION: Pertaining to the statistically significant facets associated with aggression, strong evidence of multimethod replication was found. The women-men discrepancies were not most obvious in their specific associations with aggression, but rather in their amount of explained variance, maybe reflecting examiners' or patients' implicit biases, and/or different manifestations of aggression between women and men.

Analysis of the interaction between personality dysfunction and traits in the statistical prediction of physical aggression: Results from outpatient and community samples.

The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) and the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (11th ed.; ICD-11) are, respectively, hybrid categorical-dimensional and dimensional frameworks for personality disorders (PDs). Both models emphasize personality dysfunction and personality traits. Previous studies investigating the links between the AMPD and ICD-11, and self-reported physical aggression have mostly focused on traits and did not take into account the potential interaction between personality dysfunction and traits. Thus, the aim of this study is to identify dysfunction*trait interactions using regression-based analysis. Outpatients with personality disorder from a specialized public clinic (N = 285) and community participants (N = 995) were recruited to complete self-report questionnaires. Some small-size, albeit significant and clinically/conceptually meaningful personality dysfunction*trait interactions were found to predict physical aggression in both samples. Interaction analyses might further inform, to some degree, about the current discussion pertaining to the potential redundancy between dysfunction and traits, the optimal personality dysfunction structure (in the case of the AMPD), as well as clinical assessment based on AMPD/ICD-11 PD frameworks.

A Proposed Classification of ICD-11 Severity Degrees of Personality Pathology Using the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale.

Background: The 11th version of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) has adopted a dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) nosology. Notably, it includes an assessment of PD degree of severity, which can be classified according to five categories. To date, there is no gold standard measure for assessing degree of PD severity based on the ICD-11 model, and there are no empirically-based anchor points to delineate the proposed categories. With the operationalization of PD degrees of severity in the ICD-11 PD model now being closely aligned with Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), sharing a focus on self and interpersonal dysfunction, self-report instruments developed for the latter model might prove useful as screening tools to determine degrees of severity in the former. Methods: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale, a brief validated self-report questionnaire originally designed to assess level of personality pathology according to the AMPD framework, was used to derive anchor points to delineate the five severity degrees from the ICD-11 PD model. Data from five clinical and non-clinical samples (total N = 2,240) allowed identifying anchor points for classification, based on Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis, Latent Class Analysis, and data distribution statistics. Categories were validated using multiple indices pertaining to externalizing and internalizing symptoms relevant to PD. Results: Analyses yielded the following anchor points for PD degrees of severity: No PD = 0-1.04; Personality Difficulty = 1.05-1.29; Mild PD = 1.30-1.89; Moderate PD = 1.90-2.49; and Severe PD = 2.50 and above. A clear gradient of severity across the five categories was observed in all samples. A high number of significant contrasts among PD categories were also observed on external variables, consistent with the ICD-11 PD degree of severity operationalization. Conclusions: The present study provides potentially useful guidelines to determine severity of personality pathology based on the ICD-11 model. The use of a brief self-report questionnaire as a screening tool for assessing PD degrees of severity should be seen as a time-efficient support for clinical decision and treatment planning.

Latent profiles of patients with borderline pathology based on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders.

BACKGROUND: There have been multiple attempts to try to parse out heterogeneity within borderline pathology by identifying patient subtypes; thus far, these works have yielded few consistent results. Recent developments in the operationalization of borderline pathology may provide new opportunities to identify clinically and conceptually meaningful subgroups of patients. The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) offers a categorical-dimensional operationalization of Borderline personality disorder (BPD) that has yet to be tested for identification of patient subgroups. The purpose of the present study is to test whether the combination of the Criterion A elements (pertaining to level of severity) and the seven pathological facets from Criterion B that define BPD in the AMPD can yield meaningful patient profiles. METHODS: A total of 211 outpatients from a specialized PD treatment program (133 women, Mage = 33.66, SD = 10.97) were selected based on the presence of at least moderate borderline pathology according to cutoffs recently proposed for the Borderline Symptom List-23. Valid Criterion A (Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Faceted Brief Form) self-reports were administered to measure elements and facets that define BPD in the AMPD model; these variables were used as indicators in a latent profile analysis (LPA). RESULTS: The optimal solution generated by LPA yielded four distinct profiles: (a) Borderline traits; (b) Moderate pathology with Impulsivity; (c) Moderate pathology with Identity problems and Depressivity; and (d) Severe pathology. Clinically meaningful distinctions emerged among profiles on AMPD indicators and external variables relevant to PD, especially aggression and impulsivity. CONCLUSIONS: Profiles reflected both the "severity" and "style" components imbedded within Criterion A and B of the AMPD, as they were mainly distinguished by a continuum of severity but also by some meaningful qualitative differences that may have important clinical implications for treatment planning and contracting. Results also suggest that the four Criterion A elements have independent value to identify important differences in patients with borderline pathology. They also highlight that some Criterion B facets that define BPD in the AMPD may be especially important to identify subgroups of patients, mainly Impulsivity and Depressivity.