The General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD) as an instrument for assessing the core features of personality disorders

Personality Disorders: Current Conceptualizations and Challenges

The personality disorders are said to be at the vanguard in the shift to a dimensional model of classification, as exemplified in the Alternative Model of Personality (AMPD) presented in Section III of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) for emerging models and in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Considered herein are some limitations and challenges. For the DSM-5 AMPD trait model, these include problematic placements, inadequate coverage, perceived complexity, and lack of cutoff points. For the DSM-5 AMPD Level of Personality Functioning (LPF), they include the complexity, the questionable presumption that the LPF defines the core of personality disorder, the presumption that the LPF identifies what is unique to the personality disorders, and the premise that the LPF is distinct from the maladaptive traits. Limitations and challenges of the ICD-11 model are the absence of lower-order facet scales and the fact that only the level of severity is required. This review suggests that the trait of depressivity belongs with negative affectivity and suspicion belongs within antagonism, that maladaptive traits from all 10 poles of the five domains should be provided, and that cutoff points based on social-occupational impairment and/or distress should be provided. The review summarizes research that questions whether the LPF represents the core of personality disorder, identifies what is unique to the personality disorders, and is distinct from maladaptive traits. Finally, the review suggests that the ICD-11 should require the assessment of the traits and include facet scales.

Personality Functioning, Problems in Living, and Personality Traits

The publication of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) was a signpost achievement in the personality assessment. However, research on the AMPD has generally not led to either a deeper understanding of personality disorder or personality assessment or new ideas about how to provide better care for people with personality disorder diagnoses. A significant portion of research has focused on narrow issues and appears to be driven in part by ideological differences between scholars who prefer Criterion A (personality functioning) or Criterion B (maladaptive traits). I trace these issues to ambiguity about the concept of personality functioning as defined in the AMPD and its conceptual distinction from personality traits and problems in living. In this paper, I reground these concepts in coherent and distinct definitions, elaborate upon the implications of their differences, and show how these differences can help clarify and reorient AMPD research to focus on generating clinically useful models for personality pathology and personality assessment.

Meaning in Life as an Outcome of Inpatient or Day-Hospital Psychotherapy for Personality Disorder

Psychotherapy may contribute to the experience of meaning in life. This study investigated meaning in life among patients with personality disorders during inpatient or day-hospital psychotherapy. Meaning in life was approached from two conceptual perspectives: personality functioning with an emphasis on self-direction and existential psychology. We investigated changes in the sense of meaning in life and accounted for changes in depressive symptoms and identity and interpersonal pathology. Using pre-post measures, Livesley's General Assessment of Personality Disorder, especially, the Lack-of-Meaning-Purpose-and-Direction subscale and Steger's Meaning-in-Life Presence subscale were administered to 75 patients with personality disorders during inpatient or day-hospital psychotherapy for 8-12 months. Regression models showed that levels of the lack and presence of meaning decreased and increased during treatment, respectively, controlled for changes in depressive symptoms. Decreased identity pathology was significantly associated with changes in the lack or presence of meaning. Meaning in life may act as an outcome variable in intensive psychotherapy for personality disorders. The development of identity and self-direction may restore or create the ability to give life meaning.

Early Change as a Predictor of Treatment Outcome in Patients with a Personality Disorder

A significant proportion of patients with a personality disorder do not benefit from treatment. Monitoring treatment progress can help adjust ineffective treatments. This study examined whether early changes in symptoms and personality dysfunction during the first phase of therapy could predict treatment outcomes. Data from 841 patients who received specialized treatment for personality disorders were analyzed. The study focused on whether changes in the Outcome Questionnaire-45.2 (OQ-45.2) symptom distress scale (SD), the General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD), and Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP) in the early phase of therapy predicted post-treatment personality dysfunction, as measured by the SIPP and GAPD. Early changes within a specific SIPP domain were the strongest predictors of post-treatment outcomes in that same domain. Early changes in symptoms significantly predicted outcomes in Self-Control, Relational Functioning, and Identity Integration, while the GAPD predicted outcomes in Self-Control and Social Attunement on the SIPP. For the GAPD, early changes on the GAPD itself, followed by early changes on the OQ-45 SD and the SIPP domain Social Attunement, were significant predictors. Thus, when it comes to personality dysfunction, early changes in a specific domain or measure are the best predictors of outcomes in that same domain. While the OQ-45 predicted some aspects of personality dysfunction, it should not replace disorder-specific measures. Additionally, the SIPP domains and the GAPD should not be used interchangeably to predict each other. In sum, considering these factors, monitoring early change can be useful in assessing progress in the treatment of patients with personality disorders.

Applying Item Response Theory to the OPD Structure Questionnaire: Identification of a Unidimensional Core Construct and Feasibility of Computer Adaptive Testing

Recent developments in the dimensional assessment of personality functioning have made the implementation of latent measurement models increasingly attractive. In this study, we applied item response theory (IRT) to a well-established personality functioning instrument (the OPD Structure Questionnaire) to identify a unidimensional latent trait and to evaluate the feasibility of computer adaptive testing (CAT). We hypothesized that the use of IRT could reduce the test burden - compared to a fixed short form - while maintaining high precision over a wide range of the latent trait. The OPD-SQ was collected from 1235 patients in a psychosomatic clinic. IRT assumptions were fulfilled. A 9-factor model yielded sufficient fit and unidimensionality in exploratory factor analysis with bifactor rotation. Items were iteratively reduced, and a graded-response IRT model was fitted to the data. Simulations showed that a CAT with approximately 7 items was able to capture an OPD-SQ global severity score with an accuracy similar to that of a fixed 12-item short form. The final item bank and CAT yielded satisfactory content validity. Strong correlations with depression and anxiety replicated previous results on the OPD-SQ. We concluded that IRT applications could be useful to reduce the test burden of personality functioning instruments.

Severity Indices of Personality Problems-Short Form in Old-Age Psychiatry: Reliability and Validity

The Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP; Verheul et al., 2008) is a popular self-report questionnaire that measures severity of maladaptive personality functioning. Two studies demonstrated the utility of the short form (SIPP-SF) among older adults but validation in clinical settings is lacking. Therefore, we examined the psychometric properties of the SIPP-SF in a large sample of older adult Dutch outpatients (N = 124; age range = 60-85 years, M = 69.8, SD = 5.3). The SIPP-SF domains showed good to excellent internal reliability (Cronbach's α = .75-.91) and effectively discriminated between participants with and without a personality disorder, as assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II). Convergent validity of the SIPP-SF was examined with instruments for measuring personality pathology among older adults (Informant Personality questionnaire [HAP]; Gerontological Personality Disorders Scale [GPS]). The GPS generally correlated with the SIPP-SF domains in expected directions, with small to large effect sizes. For the HAP, only 1 scale correlated with all SIPP-SF domains. No associations were found between the SIPP-SF and psychiatric symptomatology as measured by the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The SIPP-SF appears to be a promising instrument for assessing maladaptive personality functioning among older adult outpatients.

Psychometric Properties of the Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP) in Two Samples

Abstract. This study investigated psychometric properties of a dimensional measure of maladaptive core pathology for personality disorders, the Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP). The study analyzed data from 941 respondents in a community sample, 949 psychiatric patients with Personality Disorders (PD), and 413 psychiatric patients without PD in Norway. The facets of SIPP had acceptable internal consistency, but the construct validity of some facets had potentials for improvement. The original SIPP domains (the factor structures of the facets) were not supported, and factor analysis gave different results across the three current study samples. All facets of SIPP have good discriminative properties with respect to differentiating between a nonclinical sample, a clinical sample without PD, and a clinical PD sample. Further research and improvements in SIPP are suggested.

Lack of meaning, purpose and direction in life in personality disorder: A comparative quantitative approach using Livesley's General Assessment of Personality Disorder

Meaning in life is a motivational force and an existential theme for many people. The concept of meaning comprises purpose, comprehension and mattering. According to the Section III model of personality disorder (DSM-5), lack of meaning, purpose and direction in life is part of personality dysfunction. The present study aimed to determine the association between personality disorder (PD), personality dysfunction and 'lack of meaning, purpose and direction' as a distinct facet of personality dysfunction, using Livesley's self-report questionnaire-the General Assessment of Personality Disorder. This comparative quantitative study showed significant differences in lack of meaning, purpose and direction between a group of patients with PD (n = 126, PD with depression n = 51 and PD without depression n = 75), a group of non-PD patients (n = 76, with depression n = 27 and without depression n = 49) and a control group (n = 444). The PD groups had similar scores as the non-PD patients with depression. Lack of meaning was significantly associated with 'difficulty setting and attaining goals' in all groups, with 'lack of affiliative relationships' in the PD groups and 'sense of inner emptiness' in the PD group without depression and in controls. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Evaluating the assessment of the ICD-11 personality disorder diagnostic system

Proposed for the ICD-11 is a dimensional model of personality disorder that, if approved, would be a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of personality disorder. The proposal consists of a general severity rating, 5 maladaptive personality trait domains, and a borderline pattern qualifier. The general severity rating can be assessed by the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD), the trait domains by the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), and the borderline pattern by the Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS), which is developed in the present study. To date, no study has examined the relations among all 3 components, due in part to the absence of direct measures for each component (until recently). The current study develops and provides initial validation evidence for the BPS, and examines the relations among the BPS, SASPD, and PiCD. Also considered is their relationship with the 5-factor model of general personality as well as with 2 other measures of personality disorder severity (including the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale [LPFS]). Further, an alternative trait-based coding of the DSM-5 LPFS is examined (modeled after the ICD-11 SASPD), suggesting that its coverage of diverse maladaptivity may not be because it assesses the core of personality disorder, but rather because it has items specific to the different domains of personality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: Update of a brief instrument for assessing level of personality functioning

Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) introduced the alternative model of personality disorders that includes assessing levels of personality functioning. Here, we describe the development, preliminary psychometric evaluation and sensitivity to change of a revised brief self-report questionnaire, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0). Patients (N = 201) referred to a specialized centre for the assessment and treatment of personality disorders completed the LPFS-BF 2.0, the Brief Symptom Inventory and the Severity Indices of Personality Problems Short Form and were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II Disorders. Internal structure and aspects of construct validity were examined. A subsample of 39 patients also completed the questionnaires after 3 months of inpatient treatment. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated better fit for a two-factor solution (interpretable as self-functioning and interpersonal functioning) than for a unidimensional model, though acceptable model fit was evident only after two post hoc modifications. The LPFS-BF 2.0 demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency and promising construct validity. Sensitivity to change after 3 months of treatment was high. The LPFS-BF 2.0 constitutes a short, user-friendly instrument that provides a quick impression of the severity of personality pathology. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The severity of psychiatric disorders

The issue of the severity of psychiatric disorders has great clinical importance. For example, severity influences decisions about level of care, and affects decisions to seek government assistance due to psychiatric disability. Controversy exists as to the efficacy of antidepressants across the spectrum of depression severity, and whether patients with severe depression should be preferentially treated with medication rather than psychotherapy. Measures of severity are used to evaluate outcome in treatment studies and may be used as meaningful endpoints in clinical practice. But, what does it mean to say that someone has a severe illness? Does severity refer to the number of symptoms a patient is experiencing? To the intensity of the symptoms? To symptom frequency or persistence? To the impact of symptoms on functioning or on quality of life? To the likelihood of the illness resulting in permanent disability or death? Putting aside the issue of how severity should be operationalized, another consideration is whether severity should be conceptualized similarly for all illnesses or be disorder specific. In this paper, we examine how severity is characterized in research and contemporary psychiatric diagnostic systems, with a special focus on depression and personality disorders. Our review shows that the DSM-5 has defined the severity of various disorders in different ways, and that researchers have adopted a myriad of ways of defining severity for both depression and personality disorders, although the severity of the former was predominantly defined according to scores on symptom rating scales, whereas the severity of the latter was often linked with impairments in functioning. Because the functional impact of symptom-defined disorders depends on factors extrinsic to those disorders, such as self-efficacy, resilience, coping ability, social support, cultural and social expectations, as well as the responsibilities related to one's primary role function and the availability of others to assume those responsibilities, we argue that the severity of such disorders should be defined independently from functional impairment.

The Developmental Profile Inventory: Constructing a Clinically Useful Self-Report for Levels of Psychodynamic Personality Functioning

OBJECTIVE

The Developmental Profile Inventory (DPI) was constructed to assess psychodynamic personality functioning by self-report.

METHOD

On the basis of the frame of reference of the Development Profile interview method, a self-report was developed covering 3 domains, self, interpersonal functioning, and problem-solving strategies, which represent 6 maladaptive and 3 adaptive developmental levels of psychodynamic functioning. The DPI was administered to patients with personality disorders who were receiving psychotherapy (N=179) and to normal controls (N=228).

RESULTS

The internal reliabilities of the subscales were in general in the fair to good range in the patient sample, (α=0.67 to 0.88, ωh=0.52 to 0.87) and adequate to good in the healthy controls (α=0.71 to 0.91, ωh=0.71 to 0.90). Mean item-rest correlations were adequate (0.30 to 0.50). Test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation=0.73 to 0.91). The hypothesized factorial structure of the DPI with 9 subscales organized in 3 clusters was partly confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis χ/df=2.37, root mean square error of approximation=0.060, root mean residual square=0.078, and comparative fit index=0.630, with each factor showing over 80% standardized loadings >0.30, and at least 75% loadings >0.40. The DPI discriminated patients and healthy controls in a meaningful way. Correlations among the DPI and other self-report measures of global personality pathology and psychological complaints showed satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The DPI is a promising self-report measure for assessing both adaptive and maladaptive patterns of psychodynamic personality functioning. The appropriate initial psychometric properties justify proceeding with more formal tests of construct validity and predictive performance in broader mental health settings.

Borderline or Schizotypal? Differential Psychodynamic Assessment in Severe Personality Disorders

Considerable overlap in symptoms between patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) and schizotypal personality disorder (STPD) complicates personality diagnostics. Yet very little is known about the level of psychodynamic functioning of both personality disorders. Psychodynamic assessment procedures may specify personality characteristics relevant for differential diagnosis and treatment planning. In this cross-sectional study we explored the differences and similarities in level of personality functioning and psychodynamic features of patients with severe BPD or STPD. In total, 25 patients with BPD and 13 patients with STPD were compared regarding their level of personality functioning (General Assessment of Personality Disorder), current quasipsychotic features (Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire), and psychodynamic functioning [Developmental Profile (DP) interview and Developmental Profile Inventory (DPI) questionnaire]. Both groups of patients showed equally severe impairments in the level of personality functioning and the presence of current quasipsychotic features. As assessed by the DP interview, significant differential psychodynamic patterns were found on the primitive levels of functioning. Moreover, subjects with BPD had significantly higher scores on the adaptive developmental levels. However, the self-questionnaire DPI was not able to elucidate all of these differences. In conclusion, our study found significant differences in psychodynamic functioning between patients with BPD and STPD as assessed with the DP interview. In complicated diagnostic cases, personality assessment by psychodynamic interviewing can enhance subtle but essential differentiation between BPD and STPD.

Assessment of personality problems among patients with substance use disorders

Aim

Several studies have shown that personality disorders (PDs) are frequently occurring among patients with substance use disorders (SUDs). A development from research of co-occurrence estimates in this patient group investigates personality problems as dimensional constructs, which seek to capture the core of personality pathology. The aim of our study was to explore whether personality problems might be assessed among SUD patients in early stages of treatment. We also sought to investigate personality problem severity among Norwegian adult SUD patients.

Design

Personality problems were assessed using the self-report questionnaire Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP-118). The study sample consisted of 155 SUD patients currently in treatment at detoxification sections at Oslo University Hospital.

Results

Though psychometric evaluation of the SIPP-118, we found that personality problems could be assessed with high levels of internal consistency and convergent validity in SUD patients during detoxification. This is an important contribution to the discussion concerning time and context of personality pathology assessment in the SUD treatment field. The results indicated that SUD patients have personality problems at a level of severity comparable to previously investigated PD patient samples, and significantly more severe than personality problems found in normal population samples. This indicates that personality problems are a common, as well as a detrimental, feature among SUD patients, which further points towards considering these in all aspects of SUD treatment.

Conclusions

Assessing personality problems early in treatment may enable a more integrated approach to SUD treatment targeting personality problems and substance-related problems.

Disturbed self concept mediates the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adult personality pathology

BACKGROUND

Despite a robust literature documenting the relationship between childhood maltreatment and personality pathology in adulthood, there is far less clarity about the mechanism underlying this relationship. One promising candidate for such a linking mechanism is disturbance in the sense of self. This paper tests the hypothesis that disturbances in the sense of self mediate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adult personality pathology. Specifically, we assess the self-related traits of stable self-image, self-reflective functioning, self-respect and feeling recognized.

METHODS

The sample included 113 non-psychotic psychiatric inpatients. Participants completed the Child Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4+), and the self-reflexive functioning, stable self image, self-respect, and feeling recognized scales from the Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP-118). A series of linear regressions was then performed to assess the direct and indirect effects of childhood trauma on personality disorder traits (PDQ-4+ total score), as mediated by self concept (SIPP-118 scales). Aroian tests assessed the statistical significance of each mediating effect.

RESULTS

There was a significant mediating effect for all SIPP self concept variables, with a full mediating effect for the SIPP composite score and for SIPP feeling recognized and self-reflexive functioning, such that the direct effect of childhood trauma on personality did not retain significance after accounting for the effect of these variables. There was a partial mediating effect for SIPP stable self image and self-respect, such that the direct effect of the CTQ retained significance after accounting for these variables. SIPP feeling recognized had the strongest mediating effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple facets of self concept, particularly the degree to which an individual feels understood by other people, may mediate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adult personality pathology. This underscores the importance of attending to disturbances in the sense of self in patients with personality pathology and a history of childhood maltreatment. These findings also support the centrality of disturbed self concept to the general construct of personality pathology.

Disorders without borders: current and future directions in the meta-structure of mental disorders

PURPOSE

Classification is the cornerstone of clinical diagnostic practice and research. However, the extant psychiatric classification systems are not well supported by research evidence. In particular, extensive comorbidity among putatively distinct disorders flags an urgent need for fundamental changes in how we conceptualize psychopathology. Over the past decade, research has coalesced on an empirically based model that suggests many common mental disorders are structured according to two correlated latent dimensions: internalizing and externalizing.

METHODS

We review and discuss the development of a dimensional-spectrum model which organizes mental disorders in an empirically based manner. We also touch upon changes in the DSM-5 and put forward recommendations for future research endeavors.

RESULTS

Our review highlights substantial empirical support for the empirically based internalizing-externalizing model of psychopathology, which provides a parsimonious means of addressing comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

As future research goals, we suggest that the field would benefit from: expanding the meta-structure of psychopathology to include additional disorders, development of empirically based thresholds, inclusion of a developmental perspective, and intertwining genomic and neuroscience dimensions with the empirical structure of psychopathology.

DSM-5 reviewed from different angles: goal attainment, rationality, use of evidence, consequences—part 2: bipolar disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, trauma- and stressor-related disorders, personality disorders, substance-related and addictive disorders, neurocognitive disorders

Part 1 of this paper discussed several more general aspects of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and offered a detailed, paradigmatic analysis of changes made to the chapter on depressive disorders. This second part focusses on several other disorders, including bipolar and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The respective changes and their possible consequences are discussed under consideration of traditional psychiatric classification, particularly from the perspective of European traditions and on the basis of a PubMed search and review papers. The general conclusion is that even seemingly small changes such as the introduction of the mixed feature specifier can have far-reaching consequences. Contrary to the original plans, DSM-5 has not radically changed to become a primarily dimensional diagnostic system but has preserved the categorical system for most disorders. The ambivalence of the respective decision-making becomes apparent from the last minute decision to change the classification of personality disorders from dimensional back to categorical. The advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches are discussed in this context. In DSM-5, only the chapter on addictive disorders has a somewhat dimensional structure. Also in contrast to the original intentions, DSM-5 has not used a more neurobiological approach to disorders by including biological markers to increase the objectivity of psychiatric diagnoses. Even in the most advanced field in terms of biomarkers, the neurocognitive disorders, the primarily symptom-based, descriptive approach has been preserved and the well-known amyloid-related and other biomarkers are not included. This is because, even after so many years of biomarker research, the results are still not considered to be robust enough to use in clinical practice.

The essential features of personality disorder in DSM-5: the relationship between criteria A and B

The essential features of the general criteria for personality disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are based on impairments in self and interpersonal functioning (criterion A) and pathological personality traits (criterion B). The current study investigated the relationship between criteria A and B in a German psychiatric sample (N = 149). Criterion A was measured by the General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD); criterion B, by the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP) and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). There was a significant relationship between the GAPD, the DAPP, and the NEO-PI-R. The DAPP and NEO-PI-R domains increased the predictive validity of the GAPD (by 7.5% and 14.6%, respectively). The GAPD increased the variance explained by the DAPP by 1.5% and by the NEO-PI-R by 6.5%. The results suggest a substantial relationship between criteria A and B. Criterion B shows incremental validity over criterion A but criterion A only in part over criterion B. Future research should investigate whether it is possible to assess functional impairment apart from personality traits.

Specific personality traits and general personality dysfunction as predictors of the presence and severity of personality disorders in a clinical sample

This study examined the associations of specific personality traits and general personality dysfunction in relation to the presence and severity of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) personality disorders in a Dutch clinical sample. Two widely used measures of specific personality traits were selected, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory as a measure of normal personality traits, and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire as a measure of pathological traits. In addition, 2 promising measures of personality dysfunction were selected, the General Assessment of Personality Disorder and the Severity Indices of Personality Problems. Theoretically predicted associations were found between the measures, and all measures predicted the presence and severity of DSM-IV personality disorders. The combination of general personality dysfunction models and personality traits models provided incremental information about the presence and severity of personality disorders, suggesting that an integrative approach of multiple perspectives might serve comprehensive assessment of personality disorders.

The interpersonal core of personality pathology

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that personality pathology is, at its core, fundamentally interpersonal. The authors review the proposed DSM-5 Section 3 redefinition of personality pathology involving self and interpersonal dysfunction, which they regard as a substantial improvement over the DSM-IV (and Section 2) definition. They note similarities between the proposed scheme and contemporary interpersonal theory and interpret the Section 3 definition using the underlying assumptions and evidence base of the interpersonal paradigm in clinical psychology. The authors describe how grounding the proposed Section 3 definition in interpersonal theory, and in particular a focus on the "interpersonal situation," adds to its theoretical texture, empirical support, and clinical utility. They provide a clinical example that demonstrates the ability of contemporary interpersonal theory to augment the definition of personality pathology. The authors conclude with directions for further research that could clarify the core of personality pathology, and how interpersonal theory can inform research aimed at enhancing the Section 3 proposal and ultimately justify its migration to Section 2.

Differentiating normal and disordered personality using the General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD)

Criteria to differentiate personality disorder from extremes of normal personality variations are important given growing interest in dimensional classification because an extreme level of a personality dimension does not necessarily indicate disorder. The DSM-5 proposed classification of personality disorder offers a definition of general personality disorder based on chronic interpersonal and self/identity pathology. The ability of this approach to differentiate personality disorder from other mental disorders was evaluated using a self-report questionnaire, the General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD). This measure was administered to a sample of psychiatric patients (N = 149) from different clinical sub-sites. Patients were divided into personality disordered and non-personality disordered groups on the basis of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (SCID-II). The results showed a hit rate of 82% correct identified patients and a good accuracy of the predicted model. There was a substantial agreement between SCID-II interview and GAPD personality disorder diagnoses. The GAPD appears to predict personality disorder in general, which provides support of the DSM-5 general diagnostic criteria of personality disorder.