A latent class analysis of intermittent explosive disorder symptoms

Personality Disorder Symptoms in Intermittent Explosive Disorder: A Latent Class Analysis

Intermittent explosive disorder (IED) is characterized by recurrent reactive aggression. IED is associated with significant personality pathology that is suggestive of higher levels of general personality disorder (PD). However, little is known about how personality factors impact the severity and presentation of IED. The present study employed a latent class analysis to assess for distinct PD symptom classes within IED and to evaluate whether these classes differed in terms of severity and behavioral presentation. Statistical and clinical indicators revealed a four-class model, with latent classes distinguished primarily on general levels of PD symptoms (low, moderate, high). However, the two moderate PD symptom classes were distinguished from other classes on avoidant PD. In addition, classes differed in terms of severity and presentation, suggesting important implications for both general PD and avoidant PD comorbidity within IED. Results provide further insight into the heterogeneity within IED and suggest a more nuanced approach in treating this serious condition.

Evidence-Based Assessment of DSM-5 Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders

The assessment of oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder-the Disruptive, Impulse Control and Conduct Disorders-can be affected by biases in clinical judgment, including overestimating concerns about distinguishing symptoms from normative behavior and stigma associated with diagnosing antisocial behavior. Recent nosological changes call for special attention during assessment to symptom dimensions of limited prosocial emotions and chronic irritability. The present review summarizes best practices for evidence-based assessment of these disorders and discusses tools to identify their symptoms. Despite the focus on disruptive behavior disorders, their high degree of overlap with disruptive mood dysregulation disorder can complicate assessment. Thus, the latter disorder is also included for discussion here. Good practice in the assessment of disruptive behavior disorders involves using several means of information gathering (e.g., clinical interview, standardized rating scales or checklists), ideally via multiple informants (e.g., parent-, teacher-, and self-report). A commitment to providing a full and accurate diagnostic assessment, with careful and attentive reference to diagnostic guidelines, will mitigate concerns regarding biases.