Journal of Personality Disorders最新文献

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) retains six specific personality disorders (PDs) that can be diagnosed based on Criterion A level of impairment and Criterion B maladaptive facets. Those specific diagnoses are still underresearched, despite the preference expressed by most PD scholars for a mixed/hybrid classification. This study explores the possibility of using Criterion A and B self-report questionnaires to extract the specific AMPD diagnoses. Plausible prevalence estimates were found in three samples (outpatient PD, private practice, community; N = 766) using the facet score ≥ 2 and t score > 65 methods for determining the presence of a Criterion B facet; diagnoses had meaningful correlations with external variables. This study provides evidence-albeit preliminary-that the extraction of the specific AMPD PDs from self-report questionnaires might be a viable avenue. Ultimately, it could promote the use and dissemination of those diagnoses for screening purposes in clinical and research settings.

Researchers and clinicians are beginning to adopt dimensional approaches in the study and treatment of personality disorders (PD). Although dimensional approaches in the DSM-5 and ICD-11 hold considerable benefit, they need to better incorporate an appreciation of individuals' life stories, or narrative identities. Doing so will be necessary to flesh out the emphasis that both frameworks place on the role of identity in personality pathology. In this article, the authors review why, how, and when narrative identity theory and research can be integrated within dimensional approaches to PD. The authors describe established ways to assess narrative identity, review extant research on this construct in relation to PD, and signal areas crucial for future research. Stories lie at the heart of what it means to be human. The authors conclude that a greater consideration of the ways in which the self is storied can help further understanding and treatment of PD.

Emotional and behavioral variability are unifying characteristics of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Ambulatory assessment (AA) has been used to quantify this variability in terms of the categorical BPD diagnosis, but evidence suggests that BPD instead reflects general personality pathology. This study aimed to clarify the conceptualization of BPD by mapping indices of variability in affect, interpersonal behavior, and perceptions of others onto general and specific dimensions of personality pathology. A sample of participants who met diagnostic criteria for BPD (n = 129) and healthy controls (n = 47) reported on their daily interactions during a 21-day AA protocol. Multilevel SEM was used to examine associations between shared and specific variance in maladaptive traits with dynamic patterns of functioning. The authors found that variability is an indicator of shared trait variance and Negative Affectivity, not any other specific traits, reinforcing the idea that BPD is best understood as general personality pathology.

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) operationalizes Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. Despite progress in LPFS measurement development and validation, there is a lack of research, and some disagreement, concerning structural, convergent, and incremental validity of LPFS self-report measures. The present study aimed to compare the LPFS Self-Report, LPFS Self-Report of Criterion A, and LPFS Brief Form. Internal structure was assessed through principal component analyses, factor analyses, and bifactor analyses of unidimensionality. Associations with both pathological and basic personality characteristics among the LPFS measures were explored. Incremental validity of LPFS severity in predicting pathological personality outcomes controlling for basic personality traits, and the reverse, were examined. Results suggest a unidimensional structure robustly associated with other pathological personality assessments. LPFS severity and basic personality traits mutually offered unique explanatory power. We discuss the implications of assessing personality pathology using LPFS self-report measures.