Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: shifting to a dimensional model

The diagnostic categories of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders were developed in the spirit of a traditional medical model that considers mental disorders to be qualitatively distinct conditions (see, e.g., American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Work is now beginning on the fifth edition of this influential diagnostic manual. It is perhaps time to consider a fundamental shift in how psychopathology is conceptualized and diagnosed. More specifically, it may be time to consider a shift to a dimensional classification of personality disorder that would help address the failures of the existing diagnostic categories as well as contribute to an integration of the psychiatric diagnostic manual with psychology's research on general personality structure.     

Genetic and environmental contributions to the co-occurrence of depressive personality disorder and DSM-IV personality disorders

One of the main controversies with regard to depressive personality disorder (DPD) concerns the co-occurrence with the established DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs). The main aim of this study was to examine to what extent DPD and the DSM-IV PDs share genetic and environmental risk factors, using multivariate twin modeling. The DSM-IV Structured Interview for Personality was applied to 2,794 young adult twins. Paranoid PD from Cluster A, borderline PD from Cluster B, and all three PDs from Cluster C were independently and significantly associated with DPD in multiple regression analysis. The genetic correlations between DPD and the other PDs were strong (.53-.83), while the environmental correlations were moderate (.36-.40). Close to 50% of the total variance in DPD was disorder specific. However, only 5% was due to disorder-specific genetic factors, indicating that a substantial part of the genetic vulnerability to DPD also increases the vulnerability to other PDs.     

An empirically-based classification of personality disorder

An empirically-based classification is proposed based on studies of the phenotypic structure and genetic architecture of personality disorder. The proposed system has two parts: (1) a definition of general personality disorder, and (2) a system for diagnosing different forms of disorder. General personality disorder is conceptualized as a pervasive disturbance in the overall structure and organization of the personality system that is manifested as the failure to establish a coherent self-system and the capacity for adaptive interpersonal and social behavior. Different forms of disorder are represented by a dimensional system consisting of 30 primary traits organized into four higher-order domains. The system is intended to offer a systematic and comprehensive diagnosis of personality disorder for clinical and research purposes. It is also intended to be used in a flexible but prescribed way to provide a diagnostic assessment tailored to different assessment needs.     

Categorical versus dimensional status of borderline personality disorder

One of the many controversies concerning the borderline personality disorder (BPD) diagnosis is whether the construct refers to a categorical or dimensional variable. The current study used Meehl's (1973) maximum covariance analysis to investigate this issue. The charts of 409 psychiatric inpatients were systematically reviewed for the presence of BPD and dysthymic symptoms. Charts of 244 inpatients were also reviewed to assess the presence of indicators of male sex, a categorical variable. The results for BPD and dysthymia were consistent with a dimensional model, whereas those for male sex were consistent with a categorical model. A dimensional model of classification of BPD is recommended, and suggestions for future research are provided.     

Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: finding a common ground

The recognition of the many limitations of the categorical model of personality disorder classification has led to the development of quite a number of alternative proposals for a dimensional classification. The purpose of this article is to suggest that future research work toward the integration of these alternative proposals within a common hierarchical structure. An illustration of a potential integration is provided using the constructs assessed within existing dimensional models. Suggestions for future research that will help lead toward a common, integrative dimensional model of personality disorder are provided.     

Behavioral and personality characteristics of children with reactive attachment disorder

The authors compared behavioral and personality characteristics of children with reactive attachment disorder (RAD) with non-RAD children. Participants included parents of children with RAD (n = 21), parents of non-RAD children (n = 21), and some of the children (n = 20). The parents completed questionnaires regarding behavioral and personality characteristics of their children. Parents were also given the option of asking their children to participate in the study by completing self-report measures. Several significant findings were obtained. Children with RAD scored lower on empathy but higher on self-monitoring than non-RAD children. These differences were especially pronounced based on parent ratings and suggest that children with RAD may systematically report their personality traits in overly positive ways. Their scores also indicated considerably more behavioral problems than scores of the control children. Previous research has been generally qualitative in nature. The current research represents some of the first quantitative, empirical work documenting specific behaviors associated with the diagnosis of RAD. The findings of this study have implications for better understanding and dealing with reactive attachment disorder.     

An overview of issues related to categorical and dimensional models of personality disorder assessment

Despite long-standing efforts to improve the current diagnostic system for Axis II, problems remain with the categorical conceptualization of personality disorders (PDs). Due in part to these problems, interest has developed in dimensional models of PD classification. In this article, we discuss four issues relevant to categorical vs. dimensional assessment of PDs: (a) problems with self-reports in PD patients, (b) methodological issues in behavioral and clinician assessment of PDs, (c) challenges that arise when dimensional models are applied to patient and nonpatient samples, and (d) clinical implications of categorical and dimensional PD models. We suggest that researchers and clinicians address these concerns to avoid implementing a new PD assessment model that-although different from the current system-would otherwise remain fraught with difficulties.     

A framework for integrating dimensional and categorical classifications of personality disorder

Although empirical evidence strongly supports a dimensional representation of personality disorder, there is strong resistance to dimensional classification due in part to concerns about clinical utility. Acceptance of an evidence-based dimensional classification would be facilitated by information on how such a system would map onto existing diagnoses. With this objective in mind, an integrated framework is proposed that combines categorical and dimensional diagnoses. A two-component classification is adopted that distinguishes between the diagnosis of general personality disorder and the assessment of individual differences in the form the disorder takes. Then, the DSM definition of personality disorders is extended by defining individual disorders as categories of trait dimensions. This makes it possible to develop an integrated classification organized around a set of empirically derived primary traits. Assessments of these traits may then be combined to generate categorical and dimensional diagnoses. It is argued that this approach would introduce an etiological perspective into the classification of personality disorder and improve categorical classification by providing an explicit definition of each diagnosis. The clinical utility of incorporating a dimensional classification is discussed in terms of convenience and acceptability, value in predicting outcomes and treatment planning, and usefulness in organizing and selecting interventions.     

Opinions of personality disorder experts regarding the DSM-IV personality disorders classification system

OBJECTIVE: To survey the opinions of personality disorder (PD) experts on possible revisions in the classification system for PDs in the DSM-V. METHOD: Four hundred members of two international associations, the Association for Research on Personality Disorders, and the International Society for the Study of Personality Disorders, were asked to take a 78-item web survey. RESULTS: Of the experts who completed the survey (N = 96), 74% felt that the DSM-IV's categorical system of PD diagnosis should be replaced. Eighty percent felt that PDs are better conceived of as personality dimensions or illness spectra, than as categories. The most frequently endorsed alternative system for PDs was a mixed system of categories and dimensions. Most experts preferred the PDs to remain on Axis II. Only 31.3% wanted the term, "Borderline Personality Disorder," retained in the DSM-V. CONCLUSIONS: A clear majority of the PD experts were dissatisfied with the current diagnostic system for PDs.     

Beyond dysfunction and threshold-based classification: a multidimensional model of personality disorder diagnosis

An alternative dimensional model of personality disorder (PD) diagnosis that addresses several difficulties inherent in the current DSM conceptualization of PDs (excessive PD overlap and comorbidity, use of arbitrary thresholds to distinguish normal from pathological personality functioning, failure to capture variations in the adaptative value of PD symptoms, and inattention to the impact of situational influences on PD-related behaviors) is outlined. The model uses a set of diagnostician-friendly strategies to render PD diagnosis in three steps: (1) the diagnostician assigns every patient a single dimensional rating of overall level of personality dysfunction on a 50-point continuum; (2) the diagnostician assigns separate intensity and impairment ratings for each PD dimension (e.g., narcissism, avoidance, dependency); and (3) the diagnostician lists any personality traits-including PD-related traits-that enhance adaptation and functioning (e.g., histrionic theatricality, obsessive attention to detail). Advantages of the proposed model for clinicians and clinical researchers are discussed.     

The problem of severity in the classification of personality disorder

The articles in this series are very valuable but have one omission that is very important in clinical practice; they do not address the question of severity. In this article I argue that the measure of severity, using what are described as hybrid models, is a critical component of practice and can be recorded easily using standard systems, both existing and planned. In arguing this case I will use an exemplar, the Personality Assessment Schedule (PAS), mainly because we have so much data from this instrument, but emphasize that other assessment procedures can be easily adapted to produce similar severity assessments.     

The DSM-5 dimensional model of personality disorder: rationale and empirical support

Ideally, a dimensional model of normal and abnormal personality functioning within the forthcoming DSM-5 would represent a common ground among the existing alternative models and would be consistent with the substantial body of empirical research that has accumulated on such models. The DSM-5 Work Group had the opportunity to make an historic step toward the integration of the normal personality traits researched within psychology with the personality disorders of psychiatry. They chose instead to construct a cumbersome six-dimensional model of personality disorder that excludes normal personality traits, is inconsistent with the preponderance of the research, and is distinguished explicitly from the predominant dimensional model of general personality structure.     

A dimensional model of personality disorder: incorporating DSM Cluster A characteristics

The authors articulate an expanded dimensional model of personality pathology to better account for symptoms of DSM-defined Cluster A personality disorders. Two hundred forty participants (98 first-degree relatives of probands with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, 92 community control participants, and 50 first-degree relatives of probands with bipolar disorder) completed a dimensional personality pathology questionnaire, a measure of schizotypal characteristics, and Chapman measures of psychosis proneness. Scales from all questionnaires were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation. A 5-factor structure of personality pathology emerged from the analyses, with Peculiarity forming an additional factor to the common 4-factor structure of personality pathology (consisting of Introversion, Emotional Dysregulation, Antagonism, and Compulsivity). These results support a 5-factor dimensional model of personality pathology that better accounts for phenomena encompassed by the Cluster A personality disorders in DSM-IV-TR (4th ed., text revised; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). This study has implications for the consideration of a dimensional model of personality disorder in DSM-V by offering a more comprehensive structural model that builds on previous work in this area.     

Behavioral activation and the prevention of suicidal behaviors in patients with borderline personality disorder

Clinical approaches in treating and preventing suicidal behaviors in patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) have received limited attention. To stimulate further work in this area, we present a behavioral activation treatment for depression (BATD; Lejuez, Hopko, & Hopko, 2002) that has shown promising results in treating clinically depressed patients and a theoretical conceptualization for why BATD may prove particularly useful in reducing the frequency of suicide-related behaviors and other symptoms characteristic of patients with BPD. We also present theoretical consistencies between BATD and the well-established intervention of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1993), which may allow for their practical integration, and conclude with a case study that illustrates the assimilation of these strategies in the treatment of a patient with BPD.     

Paul E. Meehl's contributions to personality assessment

Many of Meehl's interests converged in his work on personality assessment. In empirical research, development of the K scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and various scales of other tests are noteworthy, but his most profound contributions were conceptual and philosophical. Essays on the role of base rates in clinical decision and on construct validity in psychological tests provided vital insights on core issues in assessment. The concept of nomological nets allowed systematic investigation of unobservable theoretical entities, with liberating effects on all natural sciences. An active clinician, Meehl understood deeply the complexities of professional service, but his insistence on empirical validation as the ultimate arbiter of the value of any procedure required all attainable rigor in the scientific foundations of clinical practice.     

Classifying personality disorder according to severity

Current systems for classifying personality disorder according to specific categories are unsatisfactory because they do not take account of wide variations in levels of personality disturbance and associated impairment. We review previous attempts to classify personality disorder according to severity and place these findings in the context of work exploring the severity of other mental disorders. On the basis of these findings, we propose a new system for classifying personality-related problems based on severity defined by the extent of personality disturbance, the level of social dysfunctioning, and the impact of the disorder for individuals and society. We recognize that studies using these definitions will need piloting and testing in field trials, but believe that this simplified approach to classifying personality disorder would encourage greater use by clinicians and assist those involved in planning services for people with personality disorder.