The Portuguese version of the self-report form of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS-SR) in a community and clinical sample.

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR) operationalizes Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. The current study aimed 1) to examine the internal consistency of the Portuguese version of the LPFS-SR in a community sample and a clinical sample, 2) to compare non-clinical participants (N = 282, Mage = 48.01, SD = 10.87) with two samples of clinical participants, one composed of patients with a personality disorder diagnosis (PD sample, n = 40, Mage = 46.18, SD = 13.59) and the other of patients with other psychiatric diagnoses (OD sample, n = 148, Mage = 49.49, SD = 11.88), with respect to LPFS-SR dimensions and total score, 3) to examine the capacity of the LPFS-SR to discriminate between samples through the ROC curve analyses, and 4) to examine the factor structure of the Portuguese version of the LPFS-SR. The Portuguese version of the LPFS-SR revealed adequate internal consistency results, akin to the original data, in the community and clinical samples. The community sample differed significantly from both clinical samples in all the LPFS-SR dimensions and total score. The ROC curve analysis indicated an optimal cut-off for the total score of 272.00, corresponding to a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 89%, in the PD vs. community samples. The LPFS-SR total score discriminative capacity between the PD and OD samples was lower, albeit also significant (area-under-the-curve of .63; p = .027; 95% CI: .52-.74). The current study provided evidence of the LPFS-SR's unidimensionality in both community and clinical samples. Although this study has limitations, its findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the LPFS-SR construct, as well as to its cross-cultural validation.

Bridging the ICD11 and the DSM-5 personality disorders classification systems: The role of the PID5BF + M.

Introduction: In both the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) personality disorders (PD) are characterized by impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning which distinguish the various levels of dysfunction. Moreover, pathological traits are used by these classification systems to define the stylistic expression of personality dysfunction. Negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition feature as trait domains in each of these models. However, there are also differences between the two models, namely, in the psychoticism domain, which does not feature as a personality trait domain in the ICD-11, and in the anankastia domain, corresponding to compulsivity in the DSM-5, which was removed from the final AMPD model. Furthermore, facets are acknowledged by the DSM-5 within each trait domain, while this does not occur in the ICD-11. In view of the similarity between these classification systems, their harmonization would be beneficial for the clinical profession. With this goal in mind, the PID5BF + M, an algorithm that assesses the DSM-5 and ICD-11 six trait domains and 18 facets, was developed and has proven to adequately characterize the ICD-11 trait domains by means of DSM-5 trait facets. Methods: The current study compares a community sample (N = 280, M age = 48.01, 53.2% females) with a PD sample (N = 131, M age = 42.66, 45.0% females) along with the PID5BF + M, the LPFS-SR and the PID-5. Given that the PID5BF + M total can be seen as a measure of the level of personality dysfunction, strong relations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total are expected. Strong relations between the trait specifiers measured by the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 are also expected. Finally, the community and clinical samples are expected to differentiate by means of the dimensions assessed through the three afore-mentioned measures. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of associations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total and between the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 traits. Group differences were explored using the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples. Results: As expected, there were strong, significant, and positive relations between the measures. Furthermore, higher scores were observed in all the variables for the PD group against the community group. Discussion: Although this study has limitations, its findings sustain that the PID5BF + M has potential to assess the severity of personality disfunction and to characterize the stylistic features of PD as they are conceived by both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Although more research is needed regarding the convergent validity of the PID5BF + M, this new test contributes to the harmonization of both systems and to parsimony in the assessment of PD, which is the main objective of clinical practice.

The Utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 Traits for Differentiating Patients With Personality Disorders From Other Clinical Groups.

The ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders delineates five trait domain qualifiers (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia), whereas the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders also delineates a separate domain of psychoticism. These six combined traits not only characterize individual stylistic features, but also the severity of their maladaptive expressions. It was, therefore, the aim of this study to investigate the utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 trait domains to differentiate patients with personality disorders (PD) from patients with other mental disorders (non-PD). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+M) was administered to a sample of patients diagnosed with a personality disorder (N = 124, M age = 42.21, 42.7% females) along with a sample of patients diagnosed with other mental disorders (N = 335, M age = 44.83, 46.6% females). Group differences were explored using the independent sample t test or the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and discriminant factor analysis was used to maximize group differences for each trait domain and facet score. The PD group showed significantly higher scores for the total PID5BF+M composite score, for the trait domains of negative affectivity, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition and for the trait facets of emotional lability, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and impulsivity. The trait domains of disinhibition, negative affectivity, and antagonism/dissociality as well as the trait facets of impulsivity, deceitfulness, emotional lability, and manipulativeness were the best discriminators between PD and non-PD patients. The global PID5BF+M composite score was also one of the best discriminators supporting its potential as a global severity index for detecting personality dysfunction. Finally, high scores in three or more of the 18 PID5BF+M facets suggested the possible presence of a PD diagnosis. Despite some limitations, our findings suggest that the ICD-11 and DSM-5 traits have the potential to specifically describe the stylistic features that characterize individuals with PD, including the severity of their maladaptive expressions.