Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Continuity between interview-rated personality disorders and self-reported DSM-5 traits in a Danish psychiatric sample.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature291088
Source
Personal Disord. 2017 Jul; 8(3):261-267
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
Jul-2017
Author
Bo Bach
Jaime Anderson
Erik Simonsen
Author Affiliation
Research Unit, Region Zealand.
Source
Personal Disord. 2017 Jul; 8(3):261-267
Date
Jul-2017
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Adult
Denmark
Female
Humans
Interview, Psychological - standards
Male
Personality Disorders - diagnosis - physiopathology
Personality Inventory - standards
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards
Young Adult
Abstract
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
PubMed ID
26784892 View in PubMed
Less detail

The alternative DSM-5 personality disorder traits criterion: A comparative examination of three self-report forms in a Danish population.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature278993
Source
Personal Disord. 2016 Apr;7(2):124-35
Publication Type
Article
Date
Apr-2016
Author
Bo Bach
Jessica L Maples-Keller
Sune Bo
Erik Simonsen
Source
Personal Disord. 2016 Apr;7(2):124-35
Date
Apr-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Denmark - epidemiology
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Personality Disorders - classification - epidemiology
Personality Inventory - standards
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards
Psychometrics - instrumentation
Reproducibility of Results
Self Report
Young Adult
Abstract
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.
PubMed ID
26642229 View in PubMed
Less detail