Persönlichkeitsdiagnostik im DSM-5

Structural impairment and conflict load as vulnerability factors for burnout - A cross-sectional study from the German working population

Introduction

Individual vulnerability and resilience factors are increasingly studied in burnout research. This is especially true for clinical variables that translate directly into intervention programs from a psychodynamic perspective. For example, few studies have examined the relationship between structural impairment and the individual spectrum of motivational conflicts according to the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis system (OPD) in relation to burnout. To substantiate previous findings, we hypothesized that structural impairment as well as motivational conflicts are related to burnout, but that structural impairment explained additional variance and mediated a possible relationship between conflicts and burnout.

Method

The present cross-sectional study was carried out on a sample of the German working population (N = 545). Questionnaires were used to measure structural impairment (OPD-SQS), the conflict-modes along with the category K0 (OPD-CQ), as well as burnout (BOSS-I/-II).

Results

Structural impairment, a number of conflict modes, and burnout were significantly associated. Moreover, structural impairment explained additional variance in burnout. The requirements for the conflict-specific mediation models were given for 9 of the 12 OPD conflict modes. In these models the impact of the conflict modes on burnout was mediated by structural impairment.

Discussion

The current study broadens the comprehension of the relations between structural impairment, the conflict modes and burnout. In addition it higlights the role of structural impairment in predicting burnout risk and possible prevention approaches.

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.

Substance and Evaluation in Personality Disorder Diagnoses

Like person judgments in everyday life, diagnoses of personality disorders (PDs) reflect at least two influences: first, the actual characteristics of the target person (substance), and second, the more positive or negative view that the perceiver has of the target person (evaluation). In this article, we present a systematic account of substance and evaluation in PD diagnoses, using a modified version of Brunswik's (1956) lens model. An empirical study shows that the items of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders (AMPD) are in fact saturated with evaluation, that this evaluation is largely the same as "social desirability," and that the two mandatory components of the AMPD (criterion A and B) are not easily distinguishable from one another in that regard. We provide concrete recommendations as to how the conceptual clarity of PD diagnostics may be improved, by distinguishing people's personality dispositions from their (likely) long-term consequences.

Persönlichkeitsstörungen – unterdiagostiziert bei Patienten des Maßregelvollzugs gemäß § 64 StGB?1

Zusammenfassung. Ziel: Prüfung der Validität von Persönlichkeitsstörungsdiagnosen (PS-Diagnosen) bei Patienten der forensischen Entziehungsanstalten. Methodik: Drei Datenquellen werden herangezogen. (1) Die Entwicklung der Vergabe von Diagnosen und weitere Behandlungsparameter über einen Zeitraum von 20 Jahren werden anhand der jährlichen § 64-Stichtagserhebung beschrieben. (2) Diagnostische Einschätzungen durch Behandler und externe Untersucherinnen werden für eine Stichprobe von 109 alkoholabhängigen Patienten gegenübergestellt. (3) Auf der Basis von Daten einer laufenden Evaluationsstudie (n = 315) wird die Aussagekraft der Klinikdiagnosen mit einer dimensionalen Einschätzung der Patienten verglichen. Ergebnisse: (1) Ein enormer Rückgang der PS-Diagnosen in der Praxis korrespondiert nicht mit anderen Parametern wie dem Anteil negativer Behandlungsverläufe. (2) Die Übereinstimmung von Behandlern und externen Untersucherinnen hinsichtlich PS-Diagnosen ist kaum besser als nach Zufall zu erwarten. (3) Die PS-Diagnosen der Behandler haben praktisch kein prognostisches Gewicht. Dagegen leistet die kurze dimensionale Einschätzung einen signifikanten Beitrag zur Vorhersage des Outcomes (insbesondere: Entlassung in die Freiheit nach günstigem Verlauf vs. „Erledigung“ der Unterbringung mangels Erfolgsaussicht). Schlussfolgerung: Die Aussagekraft der in der Praxis gestellten kategorialen PS-Diagnosen ist gering. Der Rückgang von PS-Diagnosen scheint vor allem Folge einer Stabilisierung des Vollzugs selbst zu sein. Wohlverhalten und Stabilität im Stationsalltag sollten jedoch nicht den primären Maßstab für diagnostische Einschätzungen bilden.

[Development of a 12-item version of the OPD-Structure Questionnaire (OPD-SQS)]

OBJECTIVES

Screening for personality dysfunction is relevant to treatment planning in psychotherapy, psychosomatic medicine and psychiatry. This makes short versions of field-tested approaches such as the OPD Structure Questionnaire (OPD-SQ) necessary.

METHODS

With the aim of developing a screening version, the original sample of the OPD-SQ was divided into two subsamples. After developing a preliminary 12-item version in one subsample, we used confirmatory factor-analysis in the second subsample as well as an independent sample to test the factor structure.

RESULTS

The analyses confirmed a structure of three correlating factors with adequate fit indices. Other findings relating to the validity of the long version were replicated as well. In addition, data from an independent sample of psychotherapy inpatients confirmed the factor structure and provided further evidence for its validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The OPD-SQS is a viable screening instrument for supporting clinical decision making in stepped-care approaches in psychotherapy, psychosomatic medicine and psychiatry.

[Standardization of the German 16-item short version of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-16)]

Standardization of the German 16-item short version of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-16).

OBJECTIVES

The 16-item short version of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-16) is a self-report measure assessing the severity of personality dysfunction. This study provides representative norms and determines the smallest real difference value for the IPO-16.

METHODS

Standardization of the IPO-16 was based on a representative survey among the German general population (N = 2502). Retest reliability and the smallest real difference were assessed in a separate longitudinal online survey, whereby participants completed the IPO-16 three times at time intervals of 2 months (N = 495).

RESULTS

The average IPO-16-mean score in the general population was 1.87. The influence of age and sex was small, albeit statistically significant.We therefore developed sex- and age-specific norms. The average retest reliability across 2 months was .85, and the smallest real difference was 0.66.

CONCLUSIONS

The IPO-16 is a well-validated, and now standardized, screening instrument for the assessment of severity of personality dysfunction. It can be recommended for use in research and practice.

Connecting Personality Structure and Dynamics: Towards a More Evidence-Based and Clinically Useful Diagnostic Scheme

The purpose of this special issue of the Journal of Personality Disorders is to promote the integration of personality structure and dynamics towards more evidence-based and clinically useful conceptualizations of personality pathology. In this article, we describe a contemporary model of personality structure that is useful for distinguishing patients from one another and the connections between this structure and within-person dynamics that occur across different levels of an individual personality, across situations, and within situations. In so doing, we connect the personality trait tradition that has tended to emphasize stable individual differences with traditions that have tended to focus on the more dynamic aspects of interpersonal behavior and emotional experience. We then introduce the empirical articles in this special issue within this integrative context, in order to demonstrate the value in connecting personality structure to dynamics for research and practice.