Level of personality functioning as a predictor of psychosocial functioning-Concurrent validity of criterion A

Competing Models of Personality Disorder: Relations With Psychosocial Functioning

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), includes 10 categorical personality disorders (PD) in Section II (Section II PD) and a dimensional alternative model of PD (AMPD) in Section III. We compared the two models in explaining concurrent psychosocial functioning levels in psychiatric outpatients and community residents screened as at risk for PD pathology (N = 600). The AMPD's fully dimensional form showed stronger associations with psychosocial difficulties and explained more of their variance compared with the categorical Section II PD. AMPD Criterion A (personality functioning impairment) and Criterion B (pathological traits) incrementally predicted psychosocial functioning about equally with some unique predictions. Finally, AMPD's six categorical PD diagnoses did not show stronger associations with psychosocial functioning than the corresponding Section II PD diagnoses. Findings directly comparing the two models remain important and timely for informing future conceptualizations of PD in the diagnostic system.

Clinical profiles of adolescent personality pathology: a latent structure examination of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) in a help-seeking sample

BACKGROUND

Despite the introduction of dimensional conceptualisations of personality functioning in the latest classification systems, such as Criterion A of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders in the DSM-5, heterogeneous clinical presentation of personality pathology remains a challenge. Relatedly, the latent structure of personality pathology as assessed by the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1) has not yet been comprehensively examined in adolescents. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the latent structure of the STiP-5.1, and, based on those findings, to describe any unique clinical profiles that might emerge.

METHODS

The final sample comprised 502 participants aged 11-18 years consecutively recruited from a specialised personality disorder outpatient service, as well as general day clinic and inpatient wards at the University Hospital University Hospital of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland. Participants were assessed using the STiP-5.1, as well as a battery of other psychological measures by clinical psychologists or trained doctoral students. Variations of Factor Analysis, Latent Class Analysis and Factor Mixture Models (FMM) were applied to the STiP-5.1 to determine the most appropriate structure.

RESULTS

The best fitting model was an FMM comprising four-classes and two factors (corresponding to self- and interpersonal-functioning). The classes differed in both overall severity of personality functioning impairment, and in their scores and clinical relevance on each element of the STiP-5.1. When compared to the overall sample, classes differed in their unique clinical presentation: class 1 had low impairment, class 2 had impairments primarily in self-functioning with high depressivity, class 3 had mixed levels of impairment with emerging problems in identity and empathy, and class 4 had severe overall personality functioning impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

A complex model incorporating both dimensional and categorical components most adequately describes the latent structure of the STiP-5.1 in our adolescent sample. We conclude that Criterion A provides clinically useful information beyond severity (as a dimensional continuum) alone, and that the hybrid model found for personality functioning in our sample warrants further attention. Findings can help to parse out clinical heterogeneity in personality pathology in adolescents, and help to inform early identification and intervention efforts.

Differentiation of Self and Interpersonal Functioning with the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0

Research on Criterion A of the alternative model for personality disorders is recently expanding and provides mixed results concerning the unidimensional operational definition of severity by the model, characterized by impaired self (identity and self-direction) and interpersonal (empathy and intimacy) functioning. Studies resulted in one, as well as two or more factor structures. The present study demonstrated the importance of the structural and relational differentiation of self and interpersonal dimensions of personality functioning. One thousand seventy-four participants (community and clinical mixed sample) completed the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form and the Questionnaire for the World Health Organization Disability Assessment. An LPFS-BF 2.0 two-factor structure with self and interpersonal functioning factors was corroborated by confirmatory factor analyses and bifactor modeling. Joint Exploratory Factor Analysis of the LPFS-BF 2.0 domains with maladaptive personality domains clearly differentiated the personality functioning factors. While the self-functioning factor was more closely linked to negative affect (and to disinhibition and psychoticism), the interpersonal functioning factor connected to detachment. Self-functioning predicted functional impairment along and beyond personality domains. The LPFS-BF 2.0 appears a useful tool for clinical routine monitoring of both self and interpersonal functioning.

Using the Personality Assessment Inventory to Assess the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders: Criterion Validity in a Clinical Sample

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a broadband measure of psychopathology that is widely used in applied settings. Researchers developed regression-based estimates that use the PAI to measure constructs of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) - a hybrid dimensional and categorical approach to conceptualizing personality disorders. Although prior work has linked these estimates to formal measures of the AMPD, there is little work investigating the clinical correlates of this scoring approach of the PAI. The current study examines associations between these PAI-based AMPD estimates and life data in a large, archival dataset of psychiatric outpatients and inpatients. We found general support for the criterion validity of AMPD estimate scores, such that a theoretically consistent pattern of associations emerged with indicators such as prior academic achievement, antisocial behavior, psychiatric history, and substance abuse. These results provide preliminary support to this scoring approach for use in clinical samples.

Loneliness Is Associated With Lower Self- and Clinician-Rated Levels of Personality Functioning

Personality disorders (PDs) are associated with interpersonal dysfunction, loneliness, and reduced social embeddedness. This study investigates loneliness and social network size in association with self- and clinician-rated personality functioning regarding the DSM-5's Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Eighty psychiatric inpatients including participants with and without PDs completed the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form, the UCLA Loneliness Scale, and the Social Network Index. Patients with PDs reported more loneliness and personality dysfunctioning than patients without PDs. Social network size did not differ between patient groups and showed lower correlations with personality functioning compared to loneliness. Loneliness was further associated with deficits in personality functioning. Deficits in distinct AMPD domains and loneliness may constitute transdiagnostically relevant factors that are related and mutually reinforcing. This could be important for identifying patients beyond PD diagnoses who are at risk of poor psychosocial functioning and require tailored psychotherapy.

ICD-11 personality disorder features in the danish general population: Cut-offs and prevalence rates for severity levels

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence rates and correlates of personality disorders (PD) are relevant to health care policy and planning.

OBJECTIVES

To present normative data for self-reported ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) features including tentative cut-off scores and prevalence rates for severity levels along with psychosocial correlates.

METHODS

The Personality Disorder Severity ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) scale and criterion measures of impairment were administered to a social-demographically stratified sample of Danish citizens (N = 8,941) of which 3,044 delivered complete data. Item-Response Theory (IRT) was employed to indicate cut-offs based on standard deviations from the latent mean.

RESULTS

The unidimensionality of the PDS-ICD-11 score was supported and IRT analysis suggested norm-based thresholds at latent severity levels. Expected associations with criterion measures were found.

CONCLUSION

The normative data portray ICD-11 PD features in the general population and allow for interpretation of PDS-ICD-11 scores (e.g., scores of 12, 16, and 19 may indicate mild, moderate, and severe dysfunction), which may inform health care policy and planning. A total weighted prevalence of 6.9 % of the Danish general population is estimated to have clinically significant personality dysfunction, proportionally composed of Mild (4.8 %), Moderate (1.2 %), and Severe (0.9 %) levels. Future research should corroborate these findings using relevant clinical samples and methods.

Measuring personality functioning with the 12-item version of the OPD-Structure Questionnaire (OPD-SQS): reliability, factor structure, validity, and measurement invariance in the general population

Background

The assessment of personality functioning is at the core of current dimensional models of personality disorders. A variety of measures from different clinical and research traditions aim to assess basic psychological capacities regarding the self and others. While some instruments have shown reliability and validity in clinical or other selected samples, much less is known about their performance in the general population.

Methods

In three samples representative of the German adult population with a total of 7,256 participants, levels of personality functioning were measured with the short 12-item version of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis - Structure Questionnaire (OPD-SQS). We addressed questions of factor structure, reliability, validity, factorial invariance, and provide norm values.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a satisfactory to good model fit. OPD-SQS models were mostly unaffected by variables such as gender, age, or measurement time. As expected, personality functioning was associated with general psychopathology as well as indices of occupational functioning.

Conclusion

The OPD-SQS is a viable measure to assess personality functioning in the general population.

Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12-18 (LoPF-Q 12-18): Factor Structure, Validity, and Clinical Cut-Offs

The Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire 12-18 (LoPF-Q 12-18) is the only self-report measure informed by the Level of Personality Functioning (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013]) Alternative Model of Personality Disorders developed for adolescents. The present investigation includes two studies evaluating the English LoPF-Q 12-18. In Study 1, single-factor and bifactor structures (unidimensional severity criterion and four specific factors: identity, self-direction, empathy, intimacy) were evaluated in an ethnically diverse community sample (N = 453; age 10-18; 57% female). Study 2 used a community control (n = 298; age 10-18; 54.4% female) and clinical sample (n = 94; age 11-18; 58.5% female) to examine reliability, validity, and clinical utility. Study 1 results supported the bifactor model, with a robust general factor and little multidimensionality caused by the group factors, suggesting an essentially unidimensional structure. Study 2 revealed good internal consistency and construct validity and provided clinical cut-offs, supporting the use of the LoPF-Q 12-18 total score in research and clinical applications.

Comparing Measures of Criterion A to Better Understand Incremental Validity in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders distinguishes between the severity of personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and individual differences in personality disorder expression (Criterion B). Several Criterion A measures exist, but few studies have compared these measures with each other. Moreover, debates about whether the constructs of Criteria A and B are redundant (i.e., weak incremental validity) should be framed around how different Criterion A measures perform relative to others. This study of 204 undergraduate students evaluated multiple measures of Criterion A. These measures were strongly correlated with Criterion B, but evidenced incremental validity (39% of outcomes, 5% average additional variance explained) with outcomes of psychopathology and interpersonal impairments, and less consistent incremental validity with suicidality, aggression, and mental health utilization. We discuss how these results inform the construct of Criterion A relative to Criterion B and evaluate strengths/weaknesses of Criterion A measures.

Differentiating Abnormal, Normal, and Ideal Personality Profiles in Multidimensional Spaces

Abstract: Current dimensional taxonomies of personality disorder (PD) establish that intense traits do not suffice to diagnose a disorder, and additional constructs reflecting dysfunction are required. However, traits appear able to predict maladaptation by themselves, which might avoid duplications and simplify diagnosis. On the other hand, if trait-based diagnoses are feasible, it is the whole personality profile that should be considered, rather than individual traits. This takes us into multidimensional spaces, which have their own particular – but poorly understood – logic. The present study examines how profile-level differences between normal and disordered subjects can be used for diagnosis. The Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology – Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) were administered to a community and a clinical sample each (total n = 1,925 and 3,543 respectively). Intense traits proved to be common in the general population, so empirically-based thresholds are indispensable not to take as abnormal what is at most unideal. Profile-level parameters such as Euclidean and Mahalanobis distances outperformed individual traits in predicting mental problems and equaled the performance of published measures of dysfunction or severity. Personality profiles can play a more central role in identifying disorders than is currently acknowledged, provided that adequate metrics are used.

Psychotherapy readiness domains as predictors of psychotherapy outcome in trauma-affected refugees

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about predictors of psychotherapy outcome in trauma-affected refugees. Knowledge on outcome predictors can help clinicians identify patients prior to treatment who are not likely to benefit from standardized psychotherapy and take additional measures to adjust treatment to the individual patient. Given the dynamic nature of psychotherapy readiness domains, they represent potential targets to be worked with in therapy in order to improve outcomes.

METHODS

Psychotherapy readiness domains (locus of control, cognitive functioning, motivation for therapy, and personality functioning) were examined as potential predictors of psychotherapy outcome in trauma-affected refugees. Secondary analyses were conducted on data from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Study participants (N = 190) were refugees with PTSD who received flexible manual-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) at a psychiatric outpatient clinic in Denmark. Psychotherapy readiness domains were assessed via semi-structured interviews at the beginning of psychotherapy. Outcome variables were pre-post change in PTSD symptomology and global level of functioning.

RESULTS

Multiple regression analyses revealed that higher motivation for psychotherapy predicted improvement in PTSD symptomology and global level of functioning. Moreover, higher cognitive functioning predicted improvement in global level of functioning.

LIMITATIONS

The predictor rating scales need further psychometric evaluations in cross-cultural contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the importance of considering motivation in psychotherapy offered to trauma-affected refugees. Further research is needed to identify potential barriers to motivation in this diverse patient population and to determine whether motivational interventions can lead to improved treatment outcomes.

The Incremental Utility of Criteria A and B of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders for Predicting DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorders

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) includes two main criteria: moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and the presence of one or more pathological personality traits (Criterion B). The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental utility of Criteria A and B for predicting DSM-5 Section II personality disorders (PD). The sample (N = 317) consisted of three well-defined groups: non-clinical participants (n = 35), psychiatric patients with PD (n = 193), and without PD (n = 83). All were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I): Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Logistic regression analyses showed that the SCID-5-AMPD-I could predict the presence of PDs in general, and the three specific PDs that were investigated (i.e., Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs). The PID-5 domains enhanced prediction of the specific PDs, but not the presence of PDs in general, when entered in the second step. Our results support the AMPD model: Criterion A predicted the presence of DSM-5 Section II PDs in general, whereas measures of Criterion B incremented prediction of Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs.

Construct Validity of the Dutch, English, French, and Spanish LPFS-BF 2.0: Measurement Invariance Across Language and Gender and Criterion Validity

With the introduction of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders in the DSM-5, the need for short measures of the level of personality functioning has emerged, both for screening purposes and for assessing change during treatment. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) was constructed for this and has received support for its two-factor structure and criterion validity. The authors aimed to provide additional construct validity evidence for the LPFS-BF 2.0 by examining its factor structure and measurement invariance across the Dutch, English, French, and Spanish versions and across gender, and its criterion validity. Results showed that the two-factor model had a good fit to the data in the four linguistic versions. Configural and metric invariance were supported across linguistic versions and gender, while scalar invariance was partially supported. Reporting a mental health disorder and having consulted with a mental health professional were associated with higher LPFS-BF 2.0 scores.

Normative data for the LPFS-BF 2.0 derived from the Danish general population and relationship with psychosocial impairment

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 is a frequently used self-report inventory that may be used to screen for self- and interpersonal dysfunction according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders. Nevertheless, reliable norms and cut-off scores to aid interpretation and clinical decision making are still lacking. The LPFS-BF and relevant impairment measures were administered to a sociodemographically stratisfied sample of 2,002 adults from the general Danish population of whom 713 individuals eventually delivered data for inclusion in the present study. The unidimensionality of the LPFS-BF scores was established using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Item-Response Theory (IRT) analysis indicated satisfactory item functioning for all 12 items and suggested normative observed score thresholds at different latent severity levels. Meaningful associations were found between the LPFS-BF norm-based cut-off scores, quality of life, and social and occupational functioning. This study presented the first normative data for LPFS-BF, which specifically applies to Denmark but likely also other socioeconomically comparable Nordic and Western societies. These results allow for interpretation of LPFS-BF scores and clinical decision-making. Future research should corroborate these findings and compare them to scores obtained in other general population samples.

Level of Structural Integration and Its Association with Intersession Experiences and Outcomes: A Pilot Study

The level of structural integration (LSI), a psychodynamic/psychoanalytic concept originally developed by the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD), provides a promising empirical approach that is recognized beyond the boundaries of psychoanalysis and is highly relevant for therapy and research. The aim of our study was to investigate the intersession experiences of patients in psychotherapy with different levels of structural integration. The sample consisted of 69 inpatients who were undergoing psychotherapeutic treatment. The patients were asked to complete the German version of the Intersession Experience Questionnaire (IEQ), the short version of the OPD Structure Questionnaire (OPD-SQS) and the Brief-Symptom Inventory (BSI). LSI is associated with the situations, contents and negative emotions in the intersession experiences of patients, as well as their symptom distress over the course of therapy. Furthermore, the level of structural integration is a significant predictor of outcomes. Patients with different LSI had different intersession experiences.

The interplay of Criterion A of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, mentalization and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background and aims

The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by a worsening of mental health levels in some, while others manage to adapt or recover relatively quickly. Transdiagnostic factors such as personality functioning are thought to be involved in determining mental health outcomes. The present study focused on two constructs of personality functioning, Criterion A of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD, DSM-5) and mentalization, as predictors of depressive symptoms and life satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. A second focus of the study was to examine whether this relationship was mediated by resilience.

Methods

Linear regression analyses were used to examine the relationship between personality functioning measured by Criterion A (AMPD, DSM-5) and mentalizing abilities as predictors, and depression and life satisfaction as mental health outcomes. To assess the hypothesis that this relationship is mediated by resilience a structural equation modeling approach was conducted. Data from N = 316 individuals from the general population were collected.

Results

Linear regression models revealed highly significant associations between Criterion A/mentalization and both outcome measures. Structural equation models showed a significant partial mediation by resilience of these relationships.

Conclusion

Our results support the hypothesis that mentalizing serves as a protective function by promoting resilience to the impact of stress and threats. Criterion A and mentalization performed similarly as predictors of mental health outcomes, providing empirically overlapping operationalizations of personality functioning. This finding emphasizes the importance of personality functioning in positive and negative mental health outcomes. Furthermore, our results are consistent with a mediating role of resilience.

Differences in personality functioning impairment in mood, anxiety, and personality disorders: a cluster analysis

BACKGROUND

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders and the latest eleventh version of the International Classification of Diseases implement the level of impairment in self and interpersonal personality functioning (Level of Personality Functioning Scale - LPFS) as a core feature of personality pathology. However, some studies have indicated that personality functioning is also impaired in other mental disorders, but a more thorough exploration is missing. Thus, this study aims to develop profiles of levels of personality functioning in people with personality disorders and some other psychiatric diagnoses as well as without diagnosis.

METHODS

One-hundred-forty-nine people participated in the study. They came from three groups - healthy controls (n = 53), people with personality disorders (n = 58), and people with mood and anxiety disorders (n = 38). The LPFS was assessed by the Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1). An optimal clustering solution using agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis was generated to represent profiles of personality functioning.

RESULTS

The two patient groups showed significantly higher levels of personality functioning impairment than healthy controls. People with personality disorders showed higher levels of impairment than the other groups. In addition, the clustering analysis revealed three distinct profiles of personality functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

The impairment of personality functioning seems to be useful in the clinical assessment of other than personality disorders as well. As the resulting clustering profiles suggest, LPFS can be seen as an overall indicator of the severity of mental health difficulties and the presence of mental disorders symptoms. The LPFS provides valuable and detailed information about the individual's mental health and can thus serve as a broad basis for case formulation, treatment and therapy planning, and prognosis.

Analysis of the interaction between personality dysfunction and traits in the statistical prediction of physical aggression: Results from outpatient and community samples

The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) and the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (11th ed.; ICD-11) are, respectively, hybrid categorical-dimensional and dimensional frameworks for personality disorders (PDs). Both models emphasize personality dysfunction and personality traits. Previous studies investigating the links between the AMPD and ICD-11, and self-reported physical aggression have mostly focused on traits and did not take into account the potential interaction between personality dysfunction and traits. Thus, the aim of this study is to identify dysfunction*trait interactions using regression-based analysis. Outpatients with personality disorder from a specialized public clinic (N = 285) and community participants (N = 995) were recruited to complete self-report questionnaires. Some small-size, albeit significant and clinically/conceptually meaningful personality dysfunction*trait interactions were found to predict physical aggression in both samples. Interaction analyses might further inform, to some degree, about the current discussion pertaining to the potential redundancy between dysfunction and traits, the optimal personality dysfunction structure (in the case of the AMPD), as well as clinical assessment based on AMPD/ICD-11 PD frameworks.

Criteria A and B of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) Capture Borderline Personality Features Among Adolescents

The recent development of a dimensional view toward personality disorder opens up the field of personality research based on the constructs of personality functioning (Criterion A) and maladaptive personality traits (Criterion B) as core components of personality pathology. However, little is known about the roles of these aspects in relation to borderline personality features during adolescence. The current study aimed at exploring the associations of Criterion A and B and their contribution in predicting borderline personality features in adolescence. A sample of 568 adolescents aged 11-17 (M = 14.38, SD = 1.57; 42.4% males) from different backgrounds (community-based, psychiatric inpatients, and youth forensic care) completed a set of questionnaires among which were measures of personality functioning, maladaptive personality traits, and borderline personality features. The findings reveal that Criterion A and B are strongly interrelated and both are significant in predicting borderline personality features in adolescents. Further, the results showed the incremental value of Criterion A beyond the level of underlying psychopathology and maladaptive personality traits suggesting the distinctive function of Criterion A to capture the features of borderline personality. These findings extend the knowledge about the dimensional aspects of personality pathology in adolescence. The implications in relation to the new personality disorder model in the ICD-11 are highlighted.

Severity in the ICD-11 personality disorder model: Evaluation in a Spanish mixed sample

Severity is the main component of the ICD-11 personality disorder (PD) classification, but pertinent instruments have only recently been developed. We analyzed the psychometric properties of the ICD-11 Personality Disorder Severity scale (PDS-ICD-11) in a mixed sample of 726 community and clinical subjects. We also examined how the different components of the ICD-11 PD system -five trait domains, the borderline pattern specifier, and severity, all of them measured through self-reports- are interconnected and operate together. PDS-ICD-11 properties were adequate and similar to those of the original instrument. However, regressions and factor analyses showed a considerable overlap of severity with the five personality domains and the borderline specifier (72.6%). Bifactor modeling resulted in a general factor of PD (g-PD) that was not equivalent to severity nor improved criterion validity. The whole ICD-11 PD system, i.e., five personality domains, borderline, and severity, explained an average of 43.6% of variance of external measures of well-being, disability, and clinical problems, with severity contributing 4.8%. Suggestions to further improve the ICD-11 PD taxonomy include remodeling the present definition of severity to give more weight to the real-life consequences of traits.

Change in the Definition of Personality Disorder in Transition to ICD-11: A Look from Clinical and Developmental Perspectives

The recent body of research reveals fundamental limitations to the categorical concept of a personality disorder that has led researchers to adopt a new personality disorder concept. During the last decade DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic classifications have accepted the dimensional view towards personality pathology. Despite the differences between the two classifications, the joint aspect of both models is the construct of Levels of personality functioning. The construct of personality functioning involves personality (dys)function in the self and interpersonal domains. This two-step conceptualization includes (a) impairments of self and interpersonal functioning, indicating general signs and severity of personality disorder, and (b) pathological personality traits, reflecting ‘stylistic’ differences in the expression of personality disorder. The new conceptualization of personality disorder reflects the innovative multi-theoretical integration of known, empirically-based personality assessment paradigms. The relationship between personality functioning and interpersonal, psychodynamic, and personological paradigms provides the theoretical integrity and empirically-based structure necessary to understand the overall severity of personality pathology. Many methods (interviews, self-assessment scales, and questionnaires) have already been developed for the assessment of personality functioning, and their development will be encouraged by the ICD-11 classification established in 2022. At present, only one instrument has been developed in Lithuania for assessing the level of personality functioning in young people aged 12–18 (Barkauskienė & Skabeikytė, 2020). The empirical data about the validity of this construct and its capability to differentiate between the normal and impaired personality in adults and adolescents provide promising results, but are still accumulating. Research suggests that adolescence is a stage in development when personality pathology can fully unfold and be validly confirmed, which opens up opportunities for early intervention. Although the dimensional personality disorder model needs to further prove its importance, there is already evidence that it is less stigmatizing and returns psychology and personality into the concept of a personality disorder. This review presents changes in the conceptualization of personality disorders by discussing them from both clinical and developmental perspectives and highlighting the results of key research in recent years.

Three Dimensional Approaches to Personality Disorders: a Review on Personality Functioning, Personality Structure, and Personality Organization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The concept of personality functioning (Alternative DSM-5 Model of Personality Disorders) has led to increased interest in dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. While differing markedly from the current categorical classification, it is closely related to the psychodynamic concepts of personality structure and personality organization. In this review, the three dimensional approaches, their underlying models, and common instruments are introduced, and empirical studies on similarities and differences between the concepts and the categorical classification are summarized. Additionally, a case example illustrates the clinical application.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous studies demonstrate the broad empirical basis, validated assessment instruments and clinical usefulness of the dimensional concepts. Their advantages compared to the categorical approach, but also the respective differences, have been demonstrated empirically, in line with clinical observations. Evidence supports the three dimensional concepts, which share conceptual overlap, but also entail unique aspects of personality pathology, respectively.

[Neurobiological principles of borderline personality disorder: integration into the ICD-11 model of personality disorders]

BACKGROUND

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental disorder associated with far-reaching impairments in the self and interpersonal functioning. The broad database has contributed to the fact that BPD remains the only categorical personality diagnosis in ICD-11, even if coupled to the determination of the severity of impairments. Nevertheless, we need to deal with a dimensional conceptualization of personality disorders-which is also supported by neuroscientific findings-at the latest in 2022 when the ICD-11 comes into effect .

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review provides an overview of neuroscientific findings regarding impairments in self and interpersonal functioning in patients with BPD.

RESULTS

Alterations in the medial prefrontal cortex, temporoparietal junction and precuneus mediate deficits in self-referential thought processes and the mentalization of emotions and intentions of others. Enhanced connectivity between the amygdala and midline structures is associated with hypermentalization. At the same time, elevated insula activation seems to underlie the strengthened nonreflective parts of feelings of other people. Frontolimbic alterations are transdiagnostically associated with deficient emotional regulation and negative affectivity and alterations in reward and cognitive control regions are related to impulsivity.

CONCLUSION

Neuroscientific findings help to have a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of central functional impairments in BPD and can support the transition to ICD-11 as well as the implementation of new interventions.

Transdiagnostic conceptualization of social avoidance through the lens of personality functioning and traits

This commentary seeks to highlight how social avoidance is portrayed in the six presented case-reports from the perspective of self- and interpersonal functioning as well as stylistic trait features of negative affectivity (e.g., anxiousness and shame) and detachment (e.g., social withdrawal and emotional restriction). This approach to avoidance and social isolation will subsequently be generalized to a range of mental disorders where such features play a significant role. We propose that self and interpersonal functioning along with traits of negative affectivity and detachment may serve as a transdiagnostic framework for describing features of avoidance and social isolation across different treatment models, traditions, and disorders. We specifically assume that future developments of the promising treatment approaches presented in the current collection of case reports may benefit from such a "shared" framework for conceptualizing and treating self- and interpersonal problems related to avoidance and social isolation.

[The German Version of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF): Latent Structure, Convergent Validity and Norm Values in the General Population]

The Alternative DSM-5 Model of Personality Disorders describes the level of personality functioning, defined by impairments in self functioning (self pathology) and problems in interpersonal functioning (interpersonal pathology), as the core feature of all personality disorders. A brief self-report measure to assess the level of personality functioning, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF) comprising 12 items, was developed by a Dutch work group. The present study aimed at a first and comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the German version of the LPFS-BF in a large and representative general population sample (n=2470) as well as a non-clinical sample (n=849), particularly focusing on the factor structure, convergent validity and norm values. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the theoretically assumed and for the original version empirically confirmed two-factor solution was replicated in both samples with acceptable fit. Reliability of the total scale as well as both subscales (defined by the internal consistency) was high in both samples (McDonalds ω ≥0.83). Satisfactory convergent validity was indicated by high correlations of the German version of the LPFS-BF with other measures assessing personality dysfunction (r ≥0.72). The association with current psychological distress was similarly high. In the general population sample, the mean norm value (T₅₀) of the total scale was 15 and T₇₀ was 33. Although psychometric evaluations of the German LPFS-BF in patients with mental disorders, particularly those with personality disorders, have not yet been performed, this measure can be recommended as it provides a quick and user-friendly impression of the severity of personality functioning in the domains of self and interpersonal pathology.

A Proposed Classification of ICD-11 Severity Degrees of Personality Pathology Using the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale

Background: The 11th version of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) has adopted a dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) nosology. Notably, it includes an assessment of PD degree of severity, which can be classified according to five categories. To date, there is no gold standard measure for assessing degree of PD severity based on the ICD-11 model, and there are no empirically-based anchor points to delineate the proposed categories. With the operationalization of PD degrees of severity in the ICD-11 PD model now being closely aligned with Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), sharing a focus on self and interpersonal dysfunction, self-report instruments developed for the latter model might prove useful as screening tools to determine degrees of severity in the former. Methods: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale, a brief validated self-report questionnaire originally designed to assess level of personality pathology according to the AMPD framework, was used to derive anchor points to delineate the five severity degrees from the ICD-11 PD model. Data from five clinical and non-clinical samples (total N = 2,240) allowed identifying anchor points for classification, based on Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis, Latent Class Analysis, and data distribution statistics. Categories were validated using multiple indices pertaining to externalizing and internalizing symptoms relevant to PD. Results: Analyses yielded the following anchor points for PD degrees of severity: No PD = 0-1.04; Personality Difficulty = 1.05-1.29; Mild PD = 1.30-1.89; Moderate PD = 1.90-2.49; and Severe PD = 2.50 and above. A clear gradient of severity across the five categories was observed in all samples. A high number of significant contrasts among PD categories were also observed on external variables, consistent with the ICD-11 PD degree of severity operationalization. Conclusions: The present study provides potentially useful guidelines to determine severity of personality pathology based on the ICD-11 model. The use of a brief self-report questionnaire as a screening tool for assessing PD degrees of severity should be seen as a time-efficient support for clinical decision and treatment planning.

How does level of personality functioning inform clinical management and treatment? Implications for ICD-11 classification of personality disorder severity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Edition (ICD-11) classifies personality disturbance according to levels of severity. This article reviews the literature on levels of personality functioning in relation to clinical management and treatment, and proposes how these findings apply to the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Findings were primarily derived from studies using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), Kernberg's Level of Personality Organization, and the general P-factor of personality disorder. Severity of personality dysfunction is related to treatment outcome, risk of dropout, therapeutic alliance, readiness for treatment, risk of harm to self or others, risk of dissociation and psychotic-like breaks, coherence in narrative identity, reflective functioning, and epistemic trust.

SUMMARY

The overall level of personality disorder severity indicates risk of negative outcomes and may be used as decision tool for 'personalized medicine' and required treatment intensity (e.g., strength of alliance and the need for establishing epistemic trust). Beyond the ICD-11 guidelines for determining personality disorder severity, these implications also apply to practitioners using comparable frameworks such as the DSM-5 LPFS and Kernberg's Level of Personality Organization. Future research should focus on the interaction of severity with trait qualifiers in relation to clinical management.

An Empirical Evaluation of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders in Later Life

Personality disorders (PDs) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) are conceptualized as distinct clinical syndromes. However, debate persists about the clinical utility of this categorical model, with many researchers supporting a dimensional model that focuses on pathological personality traits and personality dysfunction. This model was published in Section III of DSM-5 and named the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). This study evaluated the AMPD by examining relationships between traits and dysfunction with traditional categorical PD constructs among older adults. Older adults (N = 202) completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5, Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report, and Coolidge Axis II Inventory. Results indicated that pathological personality traits do not relate to categorical PDs in directions predicted by the AMPD. Personality functioning related to categorical PDs in expected theoretical patterns according to the AMPD but lacked incremental validity above pathological personality traits. An implication of these findings is that the AMPD does not fully resolve the age-related issues with the traditional categorical PD model.

DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning: Refocusing Personality Disorder on What It Means to Be Human

Level of Personality Functioning (LPF) represents the entry criterion (Criterion A) of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). It is defined as a dimensional general severity criterion common to all personality disorders and conceptually independent of personality types or traits, and it represents maladaptive self (identity and self-direction) and interpersonal (empathy and intimacy) functioning. We review the history, measurement, and significance of LPF. We show that the inclusion of LPF in the AMPD is well justified if it is defined as a general adaptive failure of a subjective intrapsychic system needed to fulfill adult life tasks. If so defined, LPF distinguishes itself from maladaptive traits (Criterion B of the AMPD) and captures the contribution humans make as agentic authors to the interpretation and management of the self. While Criterion B maladaptive traits provide important descriptive nuance to manifestations of personality pathology, maladaptive LPF is conditional to the diagnosis of personality disorder.

The Inter-Rater Reliability and Validity of the Italian Translation of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I and Module II: A Preliminary Report on Consecutively Admitted Psychotherapy Outpatients

To evaluate the reliability and convergent validity of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (SCID-5-AMPD) Module I and Module II, 88 adult psychotherapy participants were administered the Italian translations of the SCID-5-AMPD Module I and Module II, Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF), Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report (LPFS-SF), Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (SCID-5-PD) relying on a Williams crossover design. SCID-5-AMPD Module I and Module II showed excellent inter-rater reliability. In terms of convergent validity, meaningful associations were observed between SCID-5-AMPD Module I scores and self-report measures of Criterion A; similarly, SCID-5-AMPD Module II trait scores were meaningfully related to PID-5 trait scores. As a whole, our preliminary findings supported the clinical utility of DSM-5 AMPD.

A Psychometric Analysis of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I): Level of Personality Functioning Scale

The current study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I) assessing the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) in a heterogeneous sample of 282 nonpsychotic patients. Latent variable models were used to investigate the dimensionality of the LPFS. The results indicate that the LPFS, as assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD-I, can be considered as a unidimensional construct that can be measured reliably across a wide range of the latent trait. Threshold parameters for the 12 indicators of the LPFS increased gradually over the latent scale, indicating that the five LPFS levels were ordered as predicted by the model. In general, the increase of threshold parameters was relatively small for the shift from Level 2 to Level 3. A better distinction among the different severity levels might be obtained by fine-tuning the interview guidelines or the Level 2 indicators themselves.

Assessment of Criterion A

The diagnostic concept of Personality Disorder (PD) is changing. A dimensional PD concept that focuses on severity of impairment of personality functioning was introduced in the DSM 5 Section III in 2013 and is adopted by the upcoming ICD-11 in a similar manner. Several reliable, valid and useful instruments to assess personality functioning (Criterion A) either as self-report, expert rating or clinical interview were developed in the past years. This article gives a latest state-of-the-art overview of these measures. It underlines the importance of multi-informant multi-method assessment of, and a longitudinal perspective on PD pathology and the importance of standardized inclusion of PD individuals in studies to increase the significance of research findings.

Personality pathology in adolescents as a new line of scientific inquiry in Lithuania: mapping a research program development

Mental health of adolescents is an important public health concern in Lithuania. The detection and treatment of early personality pathology are almost non-existent in the mental health system on the national level. While various mental health problems have been sporadically researched, there is no prior research on personality disorders overall. This paper describes the steps taken in the past years in Lithuania to develop a research program on personality pathology in adolescents. It presents a theoretical background, key objectives, and design of the current longitudinal project focused on the developmental course of personality functioning (based on Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders) over a two-year period as well as the factors that may shape its trajectories during adolescence.

Subjective experience of the origin and development of avoidant personality disorder

OBJECTIVE

To better understand how persons diagnosed with avoidant personality disorder (AVPD) make sense of the origin and development of their current everyday struggles.

METHODS

Persons with AVPD (N = 15) were interviewed twice using semi-structured qualitative interviews, which were analyzed through interpretative-phenomenological analysis. Persons with the first-hand experience of AVPD were included in the research.

RESULTS

The superordinate theme, "a story of becoming forlorn," encompassed three main themes: "it goes all the way back to when I was little," "there was a distance between others and me," and "transitions made it worse."

CONCLUSIONS

Though the results are not necessarily specific to AVPD, the findings clarify how people with AVPD can make sense of their current struggles by constructing developmental life stories in the interplay between themselves as persons and the growing demands of their social world. Furthermore, childhood relational vulnerabilities may challenge the ongoing development of social cognition and skills.

Levels of Structural Integration Mediate the Impact of Metacognition on Functioning in Non-affective Psychosis: Adding a Psychodynamic Perspective to the Metacognitive Approach

Synthetic metacognition is defined by integrative and contextualizing processes of discrete reflexive moments. These processes are supposed to be needed to meet intrapsychic as well as interpersonal challenges and to meaningfully include psychotic experience in a personal life narrative. A substantial body of evidence has linked this phenomenon to psychosocial functioning and treatment options were developed. The concept of synthetic metacognition, measured with the Metacognition Assessment Scale-Abbreviated (MAS-A), rises hope to bridge gaps between therapeutic orientations and shares valuable parallels to modern psychodynamic constructs, especially the 'levels of structural integration' of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD-2). As theoretical distinctions remain, aim of this study was to compare the predictive value of both constructs with regard to psychosocial functioning of patients with non-affective psychoses, measured with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (MINI-ICF-APP). It was further explored if levels of structural integration (OPD-LSIA) would mediate the impact of metacognition (MAS-A) on function (MINI-ICF-APP). Expert ratings of synthetic metacognition (MAS-A), the OPD-2 'levels of structural integration' axis (OPD-LSIA), psychosocial functioning (MINI-ICF-APP) and assessments of general cognition and symptoms were applied to 100 individuals with non-affective psychoses. Whereas both, MAS-A and OPD-LSIA, significantly predicted MINI-ICF-APP beyond cognition and symptoms, OPD-LSIA explained a higher share of variance and mediated the impact of MAS-A on MINI-ICF-APP. Levels of structural integration, including the quality of internalized object representations and unconscious interpersonal schemas, might therefore be considered as valuable predictors of social functioning and as one therapeutic focus in patients with non-affective psychoses. Structural integration might go beyond and form the base of a person's actual reflexive and metacognitive capabilities. Psychotherapeutic procedures specific for psychoses may promote and challenge a patient's metacognitive capacities, but should equally take the need for maturing structural skills into account. Modern psychodynamic approaches to psychosis are shortly presented, providing concepts and techniques for the implicit regulation of interpersonal experience and aiming at structural integration in this patient group.

Lived Experience of Treatment for Avoidant Personality Disorder: Searching for Courage to Be

Objective: To inquire into the subjective experience of treatment by persons diagnosed with avoidant personality disorder.

Methods: Persons with avoidant personality disorder (n = 15) were interviewed twice, using semi-structured in-depth interviews, and the responses subject to interpretative-phenomenological analysis. Persons with first-hand experience of avoidant personality disorder were included in the research process.

Results: The super ordinate theme emerging from the interviews, “searching for courage to be” encompassed three main themes: “seeking trust, strength, and freedom,” “being managed,” and “discovering the possibility for change and development.” The main theme, “being managed,” included the subthemes: “getting a diagnosis,” “receiving medication,” and “attending therapy.”

Conclusion: Although this may not be specific to avoidant personality disorder, the findings highlight the importance of being met inter-subjectively as a person with intentionality and agency, even when one does not feel like one. The importance of establishing an emotional bond and emergent trust for open therapeutic collaboration, learning, and becoming able to build courage to begin to approach that which one fears is emphasized.

Importance of Self and Other in Defining Personality Pathology

Criteria A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) defines personality pathology in terms of impairments in "self" (identity, self-direction) and "interpersonal" (empathy, intimacy) functioning. Articulated as a set of dynamic regulatory and relational processes that are stratified in the Level of Personality Functioning Scale, these impairments involve how individuals think and feel about themselves and others and how they relate to others. Defining personality pathology in terms of regulatory and relational processes involving self and other, and distinguishing severity of personality pathology from individual differences in its expression (Criteria B), offers the AMPD several advantages. First, it distinguishes the nature and severity of personality pathology from other forms of psychopathology. Second, it allows the AMPD to integrate personality structure and personality processes. Third, it is highly suitable for synthesis with the Contemporary Integrative Interpersonal Theory of personality. Finally, beyond the interpersonal perspective, it facilitates even broader theoretical and treatment integration.