Use of the TAT in the assessment of DSM-IV cluster B personality disorders

The Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale (SCORS), developed by Western, Lohr, Silk, Kerber, and Goodrich (1985), is a diagnostic instrument used to assess an array of psychological functioning by using clinical narratives such as the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) stories. This study investigated the utility of the SCORS to differentiate between Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) antisocial personality disorder (ANPD), borderline personality disorder (BPD), narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), and Cluster C personality disorder (CPD). A sample of 58 patients was separated into four groups: ANPD (n = 9), BPD (n = 21; 18 with a primary BPD diagnosis and 3 with prominent borderline traits who met 4 of the 5 DSM-IV criteria necessary for a BPD diagnosis), NPD (n = 16; 8 with a primary NPD diagnosis and 8 with prominent narcissistic traits who met 4 of the 5 DSM-IV criteria necessary for a NPD diagnosis), and CPD (n = 12). These groups were then compared on the 8 SCORS variables by using 5 TAT cards (1, 2, 3BM, 4, and 13MF). Spearman-Brown correction for 2-way mixed effects model of reliability for the 8 SCORS variables ranged from .70 to .95. The results of categorical and dimensional analyses indicate that (a) SCORS variables can be used to differentiate ANPD, BPD, and NPD; (b) the BPD group scored significantly lower (greater maladjustment) than did the CPD group on certain variables; (c) the BPD group scored significantly lower (greater maladjustment) than did the NPD group on all 8 SCORS variables; (d) the ANPD group scored significantly lower than did the NPD group on certain variables; (e) certain variables were found to be empirically related to the total number of DSM-IV ANPD, BPD, and NPD criteria; and (f) certain variables were found to be empirically related to Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) Personality disorder scales. The results of this study are discussed in terms of clinical utility, conceptual, and theoretical implications.     

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.     

Assessment procedures for narcissistic personality disorder: a comparison of the personality diagnostic questionnaire-4 and best-estimate clinical judgments

This study examined the degree of correspondence between two assessments for narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) in a mixed clinical and community sample--one using a self-report measure (Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4) and the other using clinical judgments derived from an assessment based on the longitudinal, expert, all data (LEAD) methodology. NPD scores demonstrated moderate convergence for the total scores but weak convergence for the individual criteria. The authors also examined the correlates created by each set of NPD scores using Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI). The NPD scores demonstrated areas of convergence (e.g., Cooperativeness, Self-directedness) and divergence (i.e., Harm Avoidance, Novelty Seeking) with these personality scores. These divergences may be due to the wording of certain items on the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 NPD scale, which may require rewriting if it is to provide an assessment that is more highly convergent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders NPD construct.     

Use of the TAT in the Assessment of DSM-IV Cluster B Personality Disorders

The Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale (SCORS), developed by Westen, Lohr, Silk, Kerber, and Goodrich (1985), is a diagnostic instrument used to assess an array of psychological functioning by using clinical narratives such as the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) stories. This study investigated the utility of the SCORS to differentiate between Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) antisocial personality disorder (ANPD), borderline personality disorder (BPD), narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), and Cluster C personality disorder (CPD). A sample of 58 patients was separated into four groups: ANPD (n = 9), BPD (n = 21; 18 with a primary BPD diagnosis and 3 with prominent borderline traits who met 4 of the 5 DSM-IV criteria necessary for a BPD diagnosis), NPD (n = 16; 8 with a primary NPD diagnosis and 8 with prominent narcissistic traits who met 4 of the 5 DSM-IV criteria necessary for a NPD diagnosis), and CPD (n = 12). These groups were then compared on the 8 SCORS variables by using 5 TAT cards (1, 2, 3BM, 4, and 13MF). Spearman-Brown correction for 2-way mixed effects model of reliability for the 8 SCORS variables ranged from .70 to .95. The results of categorical and dimensional analyses indicate that (a) the SCORS variables can be used to differentiate ANPD, BPD, and NPD; (b) the BPD group scored significantly lower (greater maladjustment) than did the CPD group on certain variables; (c) the BPD group scored significantly lower (greater maladjustment) than did the NPD group on all 8 SCORS variables; (d) the ANPD group scored significantly lower than did the NPD group on certain variables; (e) certain variables were found to be empirically related to the total number of DSM-IV ANPD, BPD, and NPD criteria; and (f) certain variables were found to be empirically related to Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) personality disorder scales. The results of this study are discussed in terms of clinical utility, conceptual, and theoretical implications.     

Narzisstische Persönlichkeitsstörung

Narcissism is a multifaceted term which encompasses traits of normal personality as well as a specific personality disorder. While much research has been concerned with narcissism as a trait there are only few empirical studies on narcissistic personality disorder (NPS). The current diagnostic system of NPS according to DSM-5 (section II) focuses on grandiose narcissism whereas vulnerable narcissism, which is emphasized by clinicians and researchers, has not yet been recognized. While treating NPD patients an increased suicide risk has to be taken into consideration. Psychotherapy of narcissistic patients mainly focuses on processes during patient-therapist interactions, the analysis and processing of grandiose and vulnerable schemas, emotion regulation techniques and a correction of narcissistic behavior in favor of prosocial interactions.     

Validation of Self-Report Impairment Measures for Section III Obsessive–Compulsive and Avoidant Personality Disorders

This study examined the validity of newly developed disorder-specific impairment scales (IS), modeled on the Level of Personality Functioning Scale, for obsessive–compulsive (OCPD) and avoidant (AvPD) personality disorders. The IS focused on content validity (items directly reflected the disorder-specific impairments listed in DSM-5 Section III) and severity of impairment. A community sample of 313 adults completed personality inventories indexing the DSM-5 Sections II and III diagnostic criteria for OCPD and AvPD, as well as measures of impairment in the domains of self- and interpersonal functioning. Results indicated that both impairment measures (for AvPD in particular) showed promise in their ability to measure disorder-specific impairment, demonstrating convergent validity with their respective Section II counterparts and discriminant validity with their noncorresponding Section II disorder and with each other. The pattern of relationships between scores on the IS and scores on external measures of personality functioning, however, did not indicate that it is useful to maintain a distinction between impairment in the self- and interpersonal domains, at least for AvPD and OCPD.     

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.     

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.     

Proposals for DSM-5: introduction to special section of Journal of Personality Disorders

On February 10, 2010, the official proposals for the personality disorders section of the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) were posted (see www.dsm5.org ). The posting by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group has been helpful in informing the field of the possible changes that may occur with DSM-5. Their presence allows for and encourages persons to provide their suggestions and concerns. The extent of the proposals is considerable. As expressed on the website, "the work group recommends a major reconceptualization of personality psychopathology" (Skodol, 2010, "Reformulation of personality disorders in DSM-5," para. 1). The proposals have generated some controversy. The Journal of Personality Disorders has always sought to be a participant in the crucial debates in our field. The purpose of this special issue is to provide members of the Work Group the opportunity to further articulate the rationale for the proposals, and to provide others an opportunity to articulate their concerns. Copies of this special issue were distributed to interested persons when the complete set of final papers were received (October of 2010).     

Normative and Maladaptive Personality Trait Models of Mood,Psychotic, and Substance Use Disorders

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) is a questionnaire developed to assess the five domains represented in the alternative model for personality disorders proposed in Section III of the DSM-5. This study examined the ability of the PID-5 to distinguish between different mental disorders compared to a questionnaire measure of the five-factor model (FFM) of normative personality. The study included the administration of the PID-5 and Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), a measure of the FFM, to treatment-seeking individuals with Depressive, Bipolar, Psychotic, and Alcohol Use Disorders (AUD). Diagnostic groups were compared at the domain level of PID-5 and NEO PI-R, with sex and age as covariates. The main findings on the PID-5 included higher Detachment scores for Bipolar and Depressive Disorders than Psychotic and AUDs, lower Psychoticism/higher Disinhibition scores for the AUD group compared to all other groups, and lower Negative Affect for the Psychotic Disorders versus AUD group. On the NEO PI-R, the AUD diagnostic group was associated with lower Conscientiousness and Agreeableness scores compared to all other groups, and lower Neuroticism scores than the Bipolar and Depressive groups. Group pairwise comparisons did not appear to show many differences between the PID-5 and NEO PI-R. The results suggest that the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders may have clinical utility in distinguishing personality profiles between diagnostic groups. These findings emphasize the importance of additional research on the capacity of maladaptive personality to contribute to the assessment of differential diagnoses.     

Assessing the Level of Structural Integration Using Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD): Implications for DSM-5

A key ingredient in the current proposal of the DSM-5 Work Group on Personality and Personality Disorders is the assessment of overall severity of impairment in personality functioning: the Levels of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The aim of this article is to contribute a conceptual and empirical discussion of the LPFS from the perspective of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD) system (OPD Task Force, 2008 ). First, we introduce the OPD Levels of Structural Integration Axis (OPD-LSIA), a measure of individual differences in severity of personality dysfunction that is rooted in psychodynamic theory. We show that the OPD-LSIA is reliable, valid, and highly associated with observer ratings of personality disorders. In the second part, we present results from an OPD expert consensus study exploring potential limitations of the current LPFS item set from the perspective of the OPD-LSIA. We conclude with highlighting implications for future revisions of the DSM-5 proposal.     

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.     

A comparison of interview and self-report methods for the assessment of borderline personality disorder criteria

Interview methods are widely regarded as the standard for the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD), whereas self-report methods are considered a time-efficient alternative. However, the relative validity of these methods has not been sufficiently tested. The current study used data from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality disorder Study to compare diagnostic base rates and the relative validity of interview and self-report methods for assessing functional outcome in BPD. Although self-report yielded higher base rates of criteria endorsement, results did not support the common assumption that diagnostic interviews are more valid than self-reports, but instead indicated the combined use of these methods optimally identifies BPD criteria.     

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.     

Do DSM-5 personality disorder proposals meet criteria for clinical utility?

The Work Group for the DSM-5 personality disorders has submitted their proposal to the professional community. In this paper, we consider the proposal in light of its ability to meet criteria for clinical utility as proposed by First and colleagues (2004). While the Work Group's proposal has addressed some of these concerns, we conclude that there remain several unanswered problems with how the proposal will improve the clinical utility of personality disorders section of the DSM-5. Though these concerns can be addressed to some extent in the field trials, it is incumbent upon the Work Group and clinical researchers to attend carefully to these issues so that shortcomings of previous diagnostic manuals are not repeated in the future.     

Depressive personality disorder: rates of comorbidity with personality disorders and relations to the five-factor model of personality

Depressive personality disorder (DPD) is listed in the DSM-IV as one of the "Disorders for Further Study." In this investigation we examined (1) the rates of comorbidity of DPD with the 10 personality disorders (PDs) in the main text of DSM-IV, and (2) the convergent and discriminant validity of DPD in its relation to the 30 facet traits of the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM). One hundred and sixty-nine participants with psychiatric diagnoses were interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders Questionnaire (SCID-II) and completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). A total of 26 (15%) of the participants met diagnostic criteria for at least one of the 10 main text PDs, and 15 (9%) met criteria for DPD. Of those who met criteria for DPD, 10 (59%) of the participants also met criteria for one or more of the 10 main text PDs. Regression analyses indicated a four-facet trait set derived from the NEO PI-R thought to be uniquely associated with DPD accounted for a significant amount of variance in DPD SCID-II PD scores and was significantly larger for DPD than it was for the 9 of the 10 main text PDs; the sole exception was for avoidant PD. Diagnostically, DPD overlaps significantly with other PDs but is distinguishable in its unique relation with traits from the FFM.     

Muscle Dysmorphia Research Neglects DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria

This systematic review aimed to collect, evaluate, and synthesize the research on muscle dysmorphia (MD) post official recognition as a specifier for body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) in the DSM-5, and provide recommendations for future research. Literature searches were conducted in four databases to see if inclusion criteria were met. Results revealed 33 studies meeting inclusion criteria, none of which utilized DSM-5 criteria for MD or acknowledged the criterion in their research. Few studies acknowledged the association between MD and BDD, and the methodological quality of recent MD research was considered low due to a lack of clinical samples, measurements not using validated cutoff scores, and the research designs. In conclusion, future MD research is encouraged to utilize DSM-5 diagnostic criteria to better inform clinical practice and significantly improve the methodological quality. As such, more effective treatment options may be developed, reducing the risk of health-harming consequences in these individuals.