The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) Section III offers an alternative model for the diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs), including 25 pathological personality trait facets organized into 5 trait domains. To maintain continuity with the categorical PD diagnoses found in DSM-5 Section II, specified sets of facets are configured into familiar PD types. The current study aimed to evaluate the continuity across the Section II and III models of PDs. A sample of 142 psychiatric outpatients were administered the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and rated with the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV Axis II disorders. We investigated whether the DSM-5 Section III facet-profiles would be associated with their respective Section II counterparts, as well as determining whether additional facets could augment the prediction of the Section II disorders. Results showed that, overall, the interview-rated DSM-5 Section II disorders were most strongly associated with expected self-reported Section III traits. Results also supported the addition of facets not included in the proposed Section III PD criteria. These findings partly underscore the continuity between the Section II and III models of PDs and suggest how it may be enhanced; however, additional research is needed to further evaluate where continuity exists, where it does not exist, and how the traits system could be improved. (PsycINFO Database Record
In this study we assessed the DSM-5 trait model in a large Danish sample (n = 1,119) with respect to reliability of the applied Danish version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) self-report form by means of internal consistency and item discrimination. In addition, we tested whether the five-factor structure of the DSM-5 trait model can be replicated in a Danish independent sample using the PID-5 self-report form. Finally, we examined the hierarchical structure of DSM-5 traits. In terms of internal consistency and item discrimination, the applied PID-5 scales were generally found reliable and functional; our data resembled the five-factor structure of previous findings, and we identified a hierarchical structure from one to five factors that was conceptually reasonable and corresponded with existing findings. These results support the new DSM-5 trait model and suggest that it can be generalized to other languages and cultures.
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013a) offers an alternative model for Personality Disorders (PDs) in Section III, which consists in part of a pathological personality traits criterion measured with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). The PID-5 selfreport instrument currently exists in the original 220-item form, a short 100-item form, and a brief 25-item form. For clinicians and researchers, the choice of a particular PID- 5 form depends on feasibility, but also reliability and validity. The goal of the present study was to examine the psychometric qualities of all 3 PID-5 forms, simultaneously, based on a Danish sample (N = 1376) of 451 psychiatric outpatients and 925 community-dwelling participants. Scale reliability and factorial validity were satisfactory across all 3 PID-5 forms. The correlational profiles of the short and brief PID-5 forms with clinician-rated PD dimensions were nearly identical with that of the original PID-5 (rICC = .99 and .95, respectively). All 3 forms discriminated appropriately between psychiatric patients and community-dwelling individuals. This supports that all 3 PID-5 forms can be used to reliably and validly assess PD traits and provides initial support for the use of the abbreviated PID-5 forms in a European population. However, only the original 220-item form and the short 100-item form capture all 25 trait facets, and the brief 25-item form may be ideally limited to preliminary screening or situations with substantial time restrictions.
Information on determinants of duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) is still needed to inform campaigns targeting people with first episode psychosis (FEP). This nation-wide study analysed the association between demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and geographic area), premorbid and illness-related factors (global functional level, substance misuse, and contact to police), healthcare factors (referral source and first FEP contact) and DUP.
The study population of 1266 patients aged 15-25years diagnosed with FEP (ICD10 F20.0-F20.99) was drawn from the Danish National Indicator Project during 2009-2011. The study population was combined with data from national administrative registers. A multinomial regression model was estimated to analyse the impact of demographic, premorbid and illness-related, and healthcare factors on DUP.
One third of the population had a DUP below 6months. DUP longer than 12months was associated with older age at onset, being female, having cannabis misuse, and living in peripheral municipalities. Being charged by the criminal authorities during one year before FEP was associated with a DUP over 6months.
DUP is related to a number of demographic, premorbid and healthcare factors. These findings suggest that future information campaigns should focus on increasing the awareness of early signs of psychosis not only among mental health professionals but also other professionals in contact with adolescents such as the police. It may also be useful to consider how to target information campaigns towards persons living in peripheral areas.
Reviews conclude that childhood and adolescence sexual, physical, emotional abuse and emotional and physical neglect are all risk factors for psychosis. However, studies suggest only some adversities are associated with psychosis. Dose-response effects of several adversities on risk of psychosis have not been consistently found. The current study aimed to explore adversity specificity and dose-response effects of adversities on risk of psychosis.
Participants were 101 persons with first-episode psychosis (FEP) diagnosed with ICD-10 F20 - F29 (except F21) and 101 non-clinical control persons matched by gender, age and parents' socio-economic status. Assessment included the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire and parts of the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Questionnaire.
Eighty-nine percent of the FEP group reported one or more adversities compared to 37% of the control group. Childhood and adolescent sexual, physical, emotional abuse, and physical and emotional neglect, separation and institutionalization were about four to 17 times higher for the FEP group (all p