DSM-5 personality traits and DSM-IV personality disorders

Two issues pertinent to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) proposal for personality pathology, the recovery of DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs) by proposed DSM-5 traits and the validity of the proposed DSM-5 hybrid model, which incorporates both personality pathology symptoms and maladaptive traits, were evaluated in a large undergraduate sample (N = 808). Proposed DSM-5 traits as assessed with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 explained a substantial proportion of variance in DSM-IV PDs as assessed with the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+, and trait indicators of the 6 proposed DSM-5 PDs were mostly specific to those disorders with some exceptions. Regression analyses support the DSM-5 hybrid model in that pathological traits, and an indicator of general personality pathology severity provided incremental information about PDs. Findings are discussed in the context of broader issues around the proposed DSM-5 model of personality disorders.     

Multidimensional perfectionism and the DSM-5 personality traits

Encouraging further research on the dimensional assessment of personality disorders (PDs), Section III of the DSM-5 introduced a hybrid model for the assessment of six PDs employing self-reports on 25 maladaptive personality traits (“DSM-5 personality traits”). Following suggestions that multidimensional perfectionism is an important characteristic across various personality disorders (Ayearst, Flett, & Hewitt, 2012), the present study investigated how personal (self-oriented) and interpersonal (other-oriented and socially prescribed) forms of perfectionism predicted the DSM-5 personality traits in a sample of 311 university students. Multiple regressions (controlling for the overlap between the different forms of perfectionism) showed that socially prescribed perfectionism positively predicted the traits defining schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive PD; other-oriented perfectionism positively predicted the traits defining narcissistic PD; and both socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism positively predicted the traits defining antisocial PD. In contrast, self-oriented perfectionism positively predicted only one of the four traits defining obsessive-compulsive PD (rigid perfectionism). Showing that multidimensional perfectionism predicted all DSM-5 traits defining the personality disorders of Section III, the findings suggest that future DSM-5 updates may profit from including interpersonal aspects of perfectionism as a diagnostic criterion.     

An interpersonal analysis of pathological personality traits in DSM-5

The proposed changes to the personality disorder section of the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) places an increased focus on interpersonal impairment as one of the defining features of personality psychopathology. In addition, a proposed trait model has been offered to provide a means of capturing phenotypic variation on the expression of personality disorder. In this study, the authors subject the proposed DSM-5 traits to interpersonal analysis using the inventory of interpersonal problems-circumplex scales via the structural summary method for circumplex data. DSM-5 traits were consistently associated with generalized interpersonal dysfunction suggesting that they are maladaptive in nature, the majority of traits demonstrated discriminant validity with prototypical and differentiated interpersonal problem profiles, and conformed well to a priori hypothesized associations. These results are discussed in the context of the DSM-5 proposal and contemporary interpersonal theory, with a particular focus on potential areas for expansion of the DSM-5 trait model.     

Introduction to the special issue on personality assessment in the DSM-5

The DSM-5 is poised to dramatically reshape the way clinicians and researchers assess personality by reconfiguring the conceptualization of DSM-IV personality disorders. This special issue brings together leading scholars in personality pathology, including members of the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Pathology Work Group, as well as personality assessors operating from a variety of theoretical perspectives, to describe various facets of these changes and their potential impacts and in some cases to propose alternative solutions. As we describe in this brief introductory article, the articles in this special issue highlight several important and controversial issues in the transition to DSM-5 personality assessment.     

Personality in DSM-5: helping delineate personality disorder content and framing the metastructure

The transition from the Diagnostic and Statistical Model of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision [DSM-IV-TR]; American Psychiatric Association, 2000 ) to the fifth edition (DSM-5) represents an unprecedented opportunity to integrate dimensional personality trait models into the official nosology. Not surprisingly, a variety of issues have arisen in contemplating this challenging integration. In this article, we address how a dimensional personality trait model could be a helpful component of DSM-5, from the perspective of our roles as work group members and advisors involved in the creation of a trait model and corresponding assessment instrument. We focus in particular on two potential roles for a trait model in DSM-5 that are under official consideration. First, a dimensional personality trait model might be helpful in delineating the content of personality disorders. Second, a trait model might assist in organizing the "metastructure" of DSM-5 (i.e., the arrangement of chapters and other broader classificatory rubrics).     

Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM-5

The DSM-IV model of personality disorders is composed of trait sets arranged into 10 theoretically distinct, polythetically assessed categories, with little regard for how the traits comprising these disorders are interrelated and structured. Research since the publication of DSM-III has shown that this model is untenable. The question is not whether this model needs revision; rather, the question is how to move from the existing DSM-IV framework to a model better connected with data. Empirically-based models of personality trait variation provide a starting point for DSM-5, and ongoing research will be used to delineate further the empirical structure of personality traits in the pathological range. The ultimate goal is to frame future DSMs in a way that is maximally useful for clinicians as well as researchers. It is also critical to understand that the DSM-5 is intended to be a living document that will facilitate novel inquiry and clinical applications, as opposed to a document designed to promote and perpetuate a fixed set of constructs. Thus, we view a proposed trait system as a first step on a path to a well-validated, clinically-useful structure.     

Toward a multidimensional model of personality disorder diagnosis: implications for DSM-5

This article outlines a model of personality disorder (PD) diagnosis that combines clinically useful constructs from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) with assessment procedures that maximize reliability and clinical utility while minimizing problems associated with threshold-based PD classification. I begin by addressing limitations in the current DSM conceptualization of PDs: excessive comorbidity, use of arbitrary cutoffs to distinguish normal from pathological functioning, failure to capture variations in the adaptive value of PD symptoms, and inattention to situational influences that shape PD-related behaviors. The revisions proposed by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group help resolve some of these issues, but create new problems in other areas. A better solution would be to employ a multidimensional model of PD diagnosis in which clinicians (a) assign a single dimensional rating of overall level of personality dysfunction, (b) provide separate intensity and impairment ratings for each PD dimension, and (c) list those personality traits-including PD-related traits-that enhance adaptation and functioning. Preliminary evidence bearing on the multidimensional model is reviewed, and broader clinical and empirical implications of the model are discussed.     

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.     

Reconceptualizing personality pathology in DSM-5: limitations in evidence for eliminating dependent personality disorder and other DSM-IV syndromes

The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Workgroup proposed that five DSM-IV personality disorders be eliminated as formal diagnostic categories (paranoid, schizoid, histrionic, narcissistic, and dependent), because these syndromes purportedly have low clinical utility and minimal evidence for validity. Scrutiny of studies cited in support of this proposal reveals difficulties in three areas: (1) Inadequate information regarding parameters of the literature search; (2) Mixed empirical support for proposed changes; and (3) Selective attention to certain disorders and not others. Review of validity and clinical utility data related to dependent personality disorder indicates that evidence regarding this syndrome does not differ from that of syndromes proposed for retention in DSM-5. Limitations in the research base cited by the workgroup illuminates gaps in the personality disorder literature, and may serve as a starting point for systematic research on personality pathology so that adequate empirical data are available to decide which syndromes to retain, revise, or remove in future versions of the diagnostic manual.     

A critique of the proposed prototype rating system for personality disorders in DSM-5

The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders (PDs) Work Group has recommended a reformulation of the PD section, one component of which is a replacement of specified operational criteria with a prototype matching dimensional rating system. The Work Group indicated that prototype ratings have been demonstrated to have good interrater reliability. No study was cited to support this statement, and a review of the reliability literature does not support this claim. The one study that directly compared the reliability of prototype and DSM-IV criteria counting approaches found the DSM-IV approach was much more reliably applied. The Work Group cited 2 studies supporting the validity of the prototype matching approach, one of which had significant methodological limitations and the other changed the a priori threshold on the PD prototype dimensional rating scale to categorize patients into PD positive and negative groups. The Work Group also cited 2 studies suggesting that prototype matching approaches are preferred by clinicians. Several studies have raised concerns about the adequacy of psychiatric diagnostic evaluations conducted in routine clinical practice thereby raising questions about the value of studies of clinicians' preferences in comparing different diagnostic practices. In conclusion, if the prototype matching dimensional approach described in the DSM-5 draft proposal is adopted, then it will have been adopted with essentially no empirical support demonstrating improved reliability or validity. In fact, there is evidence that reliability will be worse than the DSM-IV approach.     

Contributions from personality- and psychodynamically oriented assessment to the development of the DSM-5 personality disorders

Advances in personality assessment over the past 20 years have notably influenced the proposed assessment and classification of personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]). However, a considerable body of personality assessment and psychodynamically oriented assessment research has significant relevance to the way in which personality disorders are evaluated that appears to have gone unrecognized in the current proposals for DSM-5. In this article, I discuss the ways in which some of these 2 bodies of literature can and should inform the DSM-5 so that the diagnostic nomenclature can be more scientifically and comprehensively informed and consequently improve the clinical utility of a diagnostic system in need of considerable revision.     

Personality traits in the DSM-5

Recent advances in personality research coupled with a broad acknowledgment of the limitations of the representation of personality pathology in the third and fourth editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III and DSM-IV) have positioned personality science to influence the shape of personality assessment in the fifth edition (DSM-5). Representing normative personality with well-validated traits that are broad, normally distributed, theoretically integrative, and distinct from personality disorder constructs would take optimal advantage of this opportunity. The assessment of normative traits would also link a large body of personality research with the practice of clinical diagnosis and would encourage clinicians to consider every patient's personality regardless of his or her diagnosis. Furthermore, conceptualizing personality traits and disorders separately would promote more careful clinical consideration of the functional severity and specific symptom constellations among personality disorders. Based on these considerations I argue that Five-factor model personality traits should be assessed separately from personality disorders in the DSM-5.     

Comparing personality constructs of risk-taking behavior

Canadian subjects (N = 120) completed four psychological scales. Three of the scales were directly related to risk-taking behavior. These were the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS V; Zuckerman, 1979), the Tension Risk Adventure Inventory (TRAI; Keinan et al., 1984) and the Telic Dominance Scale (TDS; Murgatroyd et al., 1978). In addition, subjects completed the Desire for Control Scale (DCS; Burger and Cooper, 1979) to investigate the role of desire for control in risk-taking. The results indicated (1) significant differences between age and sensation seeking (2) a four-factor structure for the TRAI following factor analysis with this Canadian sample (3) numerous intra- and inter-scale relationships obtained from correlation analyses of and (4) four major dimensions arising from PCA of the four inventory scales.     

Assessing young adolescents' personality with the five-factor personality inventory

The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI) assesses a person's position on the (Dutch) psycholexically based Big Five factors: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Autonomy. FFPI factor scores are reliable and valid if ratings are made by adults. The present study yields preliminary evidence of whether young adolescents provide reliable and valid self-ratings on this instrument or whether this depends on their cognitive ability level. The sample consisted of a large and representative cohort of youngsters with a mean age of 13 years. The adult structure of the FFPI was generally well replicated, across all ability levels represented in the study. The findings further suggest that young adolescents' factor scores are construct-valid and sufficiently reliable to be used in (group) research settings. However, for reports on individual profiles and decision making, an adolescent's cognitive ability level would need to be rather high. Even then, measuring Autonomy seems challenging.     

Assessing MMPI constructs through the measurement of response latencies

Responses to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) were assessed with respect to their relevance to schema theory. The relation between scores on self-reported personality dimensions and the speed of processing test items associated with each dimension was examined. With previously derived factor analytic content scales, negative correlations were obtained between scale scores and mean latencies for endorsing relevant items, and positive correlations were found between scale scores and mean latencies for rejecting relevant items. A similar analysis completed on the traditional clinical scales revealed no such pattern. Results were interpreted as supporting the conceptualization of item responding as a content-based, schema-relevant process.     

Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part I: a review of theory and methods

Personality disorders are associated with fundamental disturbances of self and interpersonal relations, problems that vary in severity within and across disorders. This review surveyed clinician-rated measures of personality psychopathology that focus on self-other dimensions to explore the feasibility and utility of constructing a scale of severity of impairment in personality functioning for DSM-5. Robust elements of the instruments were considered in creating a continuum of personality functioning based on aspects of identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. Building on preliminary findings (Morey et al., 2011 /this issue), the proposed Levels of Personality Functioning will be subjected to extensive empirical testing in the DSM-5 field trials and elsewhere. The resulting version of this severity measure is expected to have clinical utility in identifying personality psychopathology, planning treatment, building the therapeutic alliance, and studying treatment course and outcome.     

Health anxiety and hypochondriasis in the light of DSM-5

Background: In the DSM-5, the diagnosis of hypochondriasis was replaced by two new diagnositic entities: somatic symptom disorder (SSD) and illness anxiety disorder (IAD). Both diagnoses share high health anxiety as a common criterion, but additonal somatic symptoms are only required for SSD but not IAD. Design: Our aim was to provide empirical evidence for the validity of these new diagnoses using data from a case–control study of highly health-anxious (n = 96), depressed (n = 52), and healthy (n = 52) individuals. Results: The individuals originally diagnosed as DSM-IV hypochondriasis predominantly met criteria for SSD (74%) and rarely for IAD (26%). Individuals with SSD were more impaired, had more often comorbid panic and generalized anxiety disorders, and had more medical consultations as those with IAD. Yet, no significant differences were found between SSD and IAD with regard to levels of health anxiety, other hypochondriacial characteristics, illness behavior, somatic symptom attributions, and physical concerns, whereas both groups differed significantly from clinical and healthy controls in all of these variables. Conclusion: These results do not support the proposed splitting of health anxiety/hypochondriasis into two diagnoses. Further validation studies with larger samples and additional control groups are warranted to prove the validity of the new diagnoses.