Longitudinal prediction of psychosocial functioning outcomes: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Section-II personality disorders versus alternative model personality dysfunction and traits.

Personality disorders Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1037/per0000673
Lee Anna Clark, Eunyoe Ro, Jeffrey R Vittengl, Robin B Jarrett
{"title":"Longitudinal prediction of psychosocial functioning outcomes: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Section-II personality disorders versus alternative model personality dysfunction and traits.","authors":"Lee Anna Clark, Eunyoe Ro, Jeffrey R Vittengl, Robin B Jarrett","doi":"10.1037/per0000673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We aimed to determine and compare the longitudinal predictive power of <i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition's (DSM-5</i>) two models of personality disorder (PD) for multiple clinically relevant outcomes. A sample of 600 community-dwelling adults-half recruited by calling randomly selected phone numbers and screening-in for high-risk for personality pathology and half in treatment for mental health problems-completed an extensive battery of self-report and interview measures of personality pathology, clinical symptoms, and psychosocial functioning. Of these, 503 returned for retesting on the same measures an average of 8 months later. We used Time 1 interview data to assess <i>DSM-5</i> personality pathology, both the Section-II PDs and the alternative (<i>DSM-5</i>) model of personality disorder's (AMPD) Criterion A (impairment) and Criterion B (adaptive-to-maladaptive-range trait domains and facets). We used these measures to predict 20 Time 2 functioning outcomes. Both PD models significantly predicted functioning-outcome variance, albeit modestly-averaging 12.6% and 17.9% (Section-II diagnoses and criterion counts, respectively) and 15.2% and 23.2% (AMPD domains and facets, respectively). Each model significantly augmented the other in hierarchical regressions, but the AMPD domains (6.30%) and facets (8.62%) predicted more incremental variance than the Section-II diagnoses (3.74%) and criterion counts (3.31%), respectively. Borderline PD accounted for just over half of Section II's predictive power, whereas the AMPD's predictive power was more evenly distributed across components. We note the predictive advantages of dimensional models and articulate the theoretical and clinical advantages of the AMPD's separation of personality functioning impairment from how this is manifested in personality traits. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000673","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We aimed to determine and compare the longitudinal predictive power of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition's (DSM-5) two models of personality disorder (PD) for multiple clinically relevant outcomes. A sample of 600 community-dwelling adults-half recruited by calling randomly selected phone numbers and screening-in for high-risk for personality pathology and half in treatment for mental health problems-completed an extensive battery of self-report and interview measures of personality pathology, clinical symptoms, and psychosocial functioning. Of these, 503 returned for retesting on the same measures an average of 8 months later. We used Time 1 interview data to assess DSM-5 personality pathology, both the Section-II PDs and the alternative (DSM-5) model of personality disorder's (AMPD) Criterion A (impairment) and Criterion B (adaptive-to-maladaptive-range trait domains and facets). We used these measures to predict 20 Time 2 functioning outcomes. Both PD models significantly predicted functioning-outcome variance, albeit modestly-averaging 12.6% and 17.9% (Section-II diagnoses and criterion counts, respectively) and 15.2% and 23.2% (AMPD domains and facets, respectively). Each model significantly augmented the other in hierarchical regressions, but the AMPD domains (6.30%) and facets (8.62%) predicted more incremental variance than the Section-II diagnoses (3.74%) and criterion counts (3.31%), respectively. Borderline PD accounted for just over half of Section II's predictive power, whereas the AMPD's predictive power was more evenly distributed across components. We note the predictive advantages of dimensional models and articulate the theoretical and clinical advantages of the AMPD's separation of personality functioning impairment from how this is manifested in personality traits. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会心理功能结果的纵向预测:精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第五版第二部分人格障碍与替代模式人格功能障碍和特质的比较。
我们的目的是确定并比较《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(DSM-5)的两种人格障碍(PD)模型对多种临床相关结果的纵向预测能力。我们对 600 名居住在社区的成年人进行了抽样调查,其中一半是通过拨打随机选取的电话号码并筛选出的人格病理学高危人群,另一半是正在接受心理健康问题治疗的人群,他们完成了一系列关于人格病理学、临床症状和社会心理功能的自我报告和访谈测量。其中,503 人在平均 8 个月后返回进行了相同项目的复测。我们使用第一阶段的访谈数据来评估 DSM-5 人格病理学,包括第二部分的人格病理学和人格障碍替代模型(AMPD)的标准 A(损伤)和标准 B(适应到不适应范围的特质领域和方面)。我们使用这些指标来预测 20 个第二阶段的功能结果。两个预测模型都能明显预测功能结果的差异,尽管幅度不大--平均分别为 12.6% 和 17.9%(Section-II 诊断和标准计数)以及 15.2% 和 23.2%(AMPD 领域和方面)。在分层回归中,每个模型都对其他模型有明显的增强作用,但 AMPD 领域(6.30%)和面(8.62%)分别比第二节诊断(3.74%)和标准计数(3.31%)预测了更多的增量方差。边缘型 PD 占第二部分预测能力的一半以上,而 AMPD 的预测能力则更均匀地分布在各个部分。我们注意到维度模型的预测优势,并阐明了 AMPD 将人格功能障碍与人格特质的表现方式分离开来的理论和临床优势。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparing the clinical utility of the alternative model for personality disorders to the Section II personality disorder model: A randomized controlled trial. Comparing the DSM-5 categorical model of personality disorders and the alternative model of personality disorders regarding clinician judgments of risk and outcome. Comparing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorder models scored from the same interview. Longitudinal prediction of psychosocial functioning outcomes: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Section-II personality disorders versus alternative model personality dysfunction and traits. Prospective prediction of treatment outcomes in adolescents: A head-to-head comparison of alternative model for personality disorder versus borderline personality disorder.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1