An evaluation of DSM–5 Section III personality disorder Criterion A (impairment) in accounting for psychopathology.

Chelsea E. Sleep · Donald R. Lynam · Thomas A. Widiger · Michael L Crowe · Joshua D. Miller

121 citations0/0 files storedPsychological Assessment

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Personality Disorders and Psychopathology Personality Traits and Psychology Mental Health Research Topics

Abstract

An alternative diagnostic model of personality disorders (AMPD) was introduced in DSM-5 that diagnoses PDs based on the presence of personality impairment (Criterion A) and pathological personality traits (Criterion B). Research examining Criterion A has been limited to date, due to the lack of a specific measure to assess it; this changed, however, with the recent publication of a self-report assessment of personality dysfunction as defined by Criterion A (Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-report; LPFS-SR; Morey, 2017). The aim of the current study was to test several key propositions regarding the role of Criterion A in the AMPD including the underlying factor structure of the LPFS-SR, the discriminant validity of the hypothesized factors, whether Criterion A distinguishes personality psychopathology from Axis I symptoms, the overlap between Criterion A and B, and the incremental predictive utility of Criterion A and B in the statistical prediction of traditional PD symptom counts. Neither a single factor model nor an a priori four-factor model of dysfunction fit the data well. The LPFS-SR dimensions were highly interrelated and manifested little evidence of discriminant validity. In addition, the impairment dimensions manifested robust correlations with measures of both Axis I and II constructs, challenging the notion that personality dysfunction is unique to PDs. Finally, multivariate regression analyses suggested that the traits account for substantially more unique variance in DSM-5 Section II PDs than does personality impairment. These results provide important information as to the functioning of the two main components of the DSM-5 AMPD and raise questions about whether the model may need revision moving forward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 121 citations exist upstream.

References

1999Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives 2014Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.1965A Rationale and Test for the Number of Factors in Factor Analysis 1983The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report 2017The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies.2011Item Banks for Measuring Emotional Distress From the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): Depression, Anxiety, and Anger 2011Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5 2009Public health significance of neuroticism.

Cited by

2019Level of personality functioning as a predictor of psychosocial functioning—Concurrent validity of criterion A.2019A comprehensive comparison of the ICD-11 and DSM–5 section III personality disorder models.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.