Evaluating facet-level predictions and construct validity of depressive personality disorder

Malignant self-regard: a self-structure enhancing the understanding of masochistic, depressive, and vulnerably narcissistic personalities

Several personality disorders have been prominent in the clinical literature but have been inadequately recognized in the diagnostic manuals. This group includes masochistic, self-defeating, depressive, and vulnerably narcissistic personality disorders. The theoretical and empirical relationship of these disorders is reviewed. It is proposed that the construct of malignant self-regard may account for the similarities among them. The construct describes these personality types as being fundamentally related through problematic manifestations of self-structure. The article discusses the diagnostic value of such a construct and the implications of a psychodynamically informed framework for classifying personality pathology.

Malignant self-regard: accounting for commonalities in vulnerably narcissistic, depressive, self-defeating, and masochistic personality disorders

Several personality disorders (PDs) have been of interest in the clinical literature, yet failed to have been adequately represented in the diagnostic manuals. Some of these are masochistic, self-defeating, depressive, and narcissistic PDs. The theoretical and empirical relationships among these disorders are reviewed. It is proposed that a particular type of self-structure, malignant self-regard (MSR), may account for similarities among all of them and provide a better framework upon which to understand the nature of these personality types and their discrimination from related constructs. Subsequently, a questionnaire to assess MSR was created and evaluated for its psychometric properties. The measure was found to be reliable (Cronbach's alpha=.93) and valid, given its correlations with measures of self-defeating, depressive, and vulnerably narcissistic personalities (rs range from .66 to .76). MSR also can be meaningfully differentiated from a nomological network of related constructs, including neuroticism, extraversion, depression, and grandiose narcissism. The utility of assessing self-structures, such as MSR, in the diagnostic manuals is discussed.

New directions for an old construct: Depressive personality research in the DSM-5 era

The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group has suggested that the DSM-IV depressive personality disorder (DPD) construct be assessed within a proposed set of trait domains, which include anxiousness, depressivity, and anhedonia, and that the diagnostic category itself be removed from the DSM-5. A review of studies on DPD has demonstrated many challenges and limitations to DPD research, despite strong evidence of its validity and clinical utility. Nevertheless, there remains much interest in how a depressive personality construct fits into a dimensionalized framework of assessing psychopathology. In this paper, I offer three major research directions that can help advance our understanding of the depressive personality construct. These directions can inform researchers and clinicians how depressive personality fits within broad trait dimensions of classification, as well as the internal psychological processes, dynamics and content that characterize this type of psychopathology.

Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the diagnostic interview for depressive personality

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Spanish-language version of the diagnostic interview for depressive personality (DIDP). The DIDP was administered to 328 consecutive outpatients and the test-retest and inter-rater reliability were assessed. Factor analysis was used in search of factors capable of explaining the scale and a cutoff point was established. The DIDP scales showed adequate Cronbach's α values and acceptable test-retest and inter-rater reliability coefficients. Convergent and discriminant validity were explored, the latter with respect to avoidant and borderline personality disorders. The results of the factor analysis were consistent with the four-factor structure of the DIDP scales. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed the area under the curve to be 0.848. We found 30 to be a good cutoff point, with a sensitivity of 74.5% and a specificity of 78.5%. The DIDP proved to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing depressive personality disorder, at least among our outpatients. The psychometric properties of the DIDP support its clinical usefulness in assessing depressive personality.

The Swedish Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory: psychometrics and clinical correlates from a DSM-IV and proposed DSM-5 perspective

BACKGROUND

Depressive personality is commonly seen in clinical practice, and today only one exclusive self-report instrument-the Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory (DPDI)-is available for its assessment based on the DSM-IV description of the construct.

AIMS

The purpose of this research was to evaluate a Swedish version of this measure (DPDI-Swe) in terms of its reliability, internal structure, and convergent validity using related variables from the DSM-IV criteria for depressive personality disorder (DPD) and the proposed DPD trait set for DSM-5.

METHODS

A non-clinical sample of 255 adults in southern Sweden completed a self-report package, which, in addition to DPD, included the assessment of self-esteem, optimism, hope, rumination, worry, depression, and anxiety. Quality of life was also measured.

RESULTS

Results indicated that the DPDI-Swe was internally consistent (α = 0.96). Exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation yielded three components, together accounting for 48.21% of the variance in DPDI-Swe scores. There were strong positive associations between the DPDI-Swe and measures of depression, anxiety, rumination, and worry, and strong negative associations between the DPDI-Swe and measures of self-esteem, optimism, hope, and quality of life. These significant relationships remained, albeit slightly diminished, after statistically controlling for current depressed mood.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The DPDI-Swe appears to be a reliable and valid measure of DPD, and it is available for clinical and research use.

Self-other representations mediate the relationship between Five-Factor Model depression and depressive states

While it is well established that trait depression is a risk factor for experiencing increased rates of episodes of depression, it is also the case that the ways in which the self and others are perceived, and nature of the relationship between self and other, predispose individuals to frequent depressive episodes. In this study, 182 psychiatric outpatients at three treatment facilities were evaluated for Five-Factor Model depressive traits, depressive states, and self-other representations (object relations). It was hypothesized that object relations would mediate the relationship between trait and state depression. Results partially confirmed this hypothesis. While trait depression significantly predicted variance in the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1988), two dimensions of the Bell Object Relations and Reality Testing Inventory (BORRTI; Bell, 1995)--Alienation and Insecure Attachment--partially mediated the relationship between trait and state depression. Similarly, trait depression predicted tendencies to experience frequent shifts toward depressive episodes, although the Insecure Attachment and Egocentricity scales of the BORRTI fully mediated the relationship between trait depression and depressive lability. Knowledge of self-other representations, which is being considered for inclusion in the DSM-5, allows for a more refined understanding of those factors that contribute shifts in depressive mood.

Mood and Global Symptom Changes among Psychotherapy Clients with Depressive Personality

The present study assessed the rate of depressive personality (DP), as measured by the self-report instrument depressive personality disorder inventory (DPDI), among 159 clients entering psychotherapy at an outpatient university clinic. The presenting clinical profile was evaluated for those with and without DP, including levels of depressed mood, other psychological symptoms, and global severity of psychopathology. Clients were followed naturalistically over the course of therapy, up to 40 weeks, and reassessed on these variables again after treatment. Results indicated that 44 percent of the sample qualified for DP prior to treatment, and these individuals had a comparatively more severe and complex presenting disposition than those without DP. Mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine between-groups changes on mood and global severity over time, with those with DP demonstrating larger reductions on both outcome variables, although still showing more symptoms after treatment, than those without DP. Only eleven percent of the sample continued to endorse DP following treatment. These findings suggest that in routine clinical situations, psychotherapy may benefit individuals with DP.

Affect regulation and Depressive Personality Disorder

Depressive Personality Disorder (DPD) has been under consideration for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since 1994; yet, few studies have been published that test whether those with DPD have affective experiences that are characterized exclusively by depression and negative affect. One hundred ninety-seven undergraduate students were interviewed for DPD and Borderline Personality Disorder with the Personality Disorder Interview for DSM-IV (Widiger, Mangine, Corbitt, Ellis, & Thomas, 1995), in order to control for frequently co-occurring BPD which is characterized by affective lability. Participants also were administered measures of affective lability, affective intensity, anxious and depressive states, and more trait-like manifestations of depression, anxiety, and anger. Results indicate that those with DPD may be described as having a mood state characterized by transitions from a baseline neutral mood to one of anxiety, with their experiences being more prominently depressed and dysphoric. They also have tendencies toward angry hostility, though they may not report frequent shifts from a baseline neutral mood to anger. Those with DPD also report intense, frequent experiences of depression and dysphoria, with many shifts between depression and anxiety.

Personality and depression: explanatory models and review of the evidence

Understanding the association between personality and depression has implications for elucidating etiology and comorbidity, identifying at-risk individuals, and tailoring treatment. We discuss seven major models that have been proposed to explain the relation between personality and depression, and we review key methodological issues, including study design, the heterogeneity of mood disorders, and the assessment of personality. We then selectively review the extensive empirical literature on the role of personality traits in depression in adults and children. Current evidence suggests that depression is linked to traits such as neuroticism/negative emotionality, extraversion/positive emotionality, and conscientiousness. Moreover, personality characteristics appear to contribute to the onset and course of depression through a variety of pathways. Implications for prevention and prediction of treatment response are discussed, as well as specific considerations to guide future research on the relation between personality and depression.

Combining self-defeating and depressive personality symptoms into one construct

In the history of the DSM, two disorders have been proposed for consideration that shared much in common - self-defeating personality disorder (SDPD) and depressive personality disorder (DPD). In a previous paper, it was reported that SDPD (n = 34) and DPD (n = 240) shared a diagnostic overlap of 70%. It was concluded that SDPD could not be empirically supported as a diagnostic category. In this paper, the overlap of the two disorders was explored further in this same sample (n = 1,200) of psychiatric outpatients. We found that symptoms of the two disorders were positively correlated. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) provided strong support for a model with two distinct, but very highly correlated constructs. Based on the hypothesis that SDPD and DPD are separate but related, a second-order CFA factor was fit to the data to further examine the strong association between the two disorders. Taken collectively, it is concluded that DPD and SDPD are components of the same construct, and that the current DPD and SDPD diagnoses as proposed in the DSM are actually subtypes of a common personality pathology (i.e. a second-order factor).

Depressive Personality Disorder: A Comparison of Three Self-Report Measures

Depressive personality disorder (DPD) was included in the appendix of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition ( DSM-IV) for further study. Questions abound regarding this disorder in terms of its distinctiveness from extant diagnostic constructs and clinical significance.This study examines the interrelations between three assessments of DPD and their relations to pathological personality traits and disorders in a sample of undergraduates ( N = 182). The DPD indices evinced adequate convergence with each other (mean r = .60) and similar pathological personality profiles. The authors also tested the incremental validity of the DPD scores in relation to psychological functioning, after controlling for depressive symptoms and the DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs). The DPD scores manifested limited incremental validity, mainly in the form of predicting lower levels of positive affectivity. Our results suggest that this is not specific to DPD, however, as the official PDs also manifested limited incremental validity.

What should become of depressive personality disorder in DSM-V?

Depressive personality disorder (DPD) has been under consideration for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for many years. The wealth of empirical studies on the validity of DPD has raised many questions about the validity of the DPD construct and its measures. This article specifically reviews studies on the validity of that construct and how it is measured. Although the evidence supports the idea that DPD is a viable diagnostic category, there remain significant challenges to its assessment. These findings are discussed in the context of some potential changes that may occur in the classification and diagnosis of personality disorders in DSM-V.

Comparison of prototypic cases of depressive personality disorder and dysthymic disorder

Although depressive personality disorder (DPD) was included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) appendix as a proposed category needing further research, there are concerns that it overlaps excessively with dysthymic disorder (DD). The purpose of this investigation was to identify the characteristic features of representative patients with DPD and patients with DD, and to determine whether they could be distinguished by their symptoms. Two matched samples of psychologists (n=57, n=48) identified a prototypic patient with DPD or DD, provided demographic and treatment information about the patient, and rated the patient's symptoms on a series of mood and personality disorder symptoms taken from the DSM-IV and the literature. When composite descriptions were constructed using the highest rated symptoms, there was considerable overlap in symptoms of identified DPD and DD patients. The DSM-IV research criteria for DPD provided the best description of the DPD patients; however, there was a high degree of correlation between DPD and DD criteria sets. There was also considerable comorbidity, with the majority of the patients in both groups meeting criteria for DPD and DD. However, there was a significant difference in comorbid diagnoses (and other differences in family history, outcome, and treatment history that failed to reach the more stringent level of statistical significance, i.e., p<.001) suggesting that there may be some important differences between DPD and DD. Nevertheless, the symptom ratings imply blurred boundaries between DPD and DD, suggesting the need for clearer differentiation between the two disorders or the need to adopt an alternative model of classification.

Depressive personality disorder, dysthymia, and their relationship to perfectionism

This paper reports the results of two studies in a nonclinical (n=105) and primary care outpatient sample (n=110), in which Depressive Personality Disorder (DPD), Dysthymia, and depression were assessed for their distinctive relationship with perfectionism. Results from both studies found that self-reported DPD, Dysthymia, and depressive symptoms were all intercorrelated, and that DPD, Dysthymia, and depressive symptoms were correlated with three dimensions of perfectionism-Concern over Mistakes, Doubts about Actions, and Parental Criticism. In the nonclinical sample, variance in measures of DPD was predicted by measures of perfectionism after controlling for depression and Dysthymia symptoms. A similar pattern of findings was observed in the primary care sample. This relationship with perfectionism did not occur when Dysthymia or depressive symptoms were predicted. Nevertheless, much of the variance in measures of DPD, Dysthymia, and depressive symptoms is associated with each other and not perfectionism. It is concluded that a common factor or set of factors underlies these disorders, but that DPD may be more strongly related to perfectionism than Dysthymia and depression. As a common factor(s) is identified, measures of DPD and Dysthymia may be refined, thereby increasing the discriminant validity of their measures.

Five-Factor Model Assessment of Personality Disorder

The Five-factor model (FFM) provides a viable dimensional model of personality disorder assessment. Advantages of the FFM include the provision of a precise yet comprehensive description of both normal and abnormal personality functioning, the avoidance of the many limitations and problems inherent to the categorical diagnostic system, and the incorporation of basic science research on general personality structure and functioning into clinicians' description and understanding of personality disorders. We discuss three alternative instruments for the assessment of personality disorder from the perspective of the FFM. We also provide a method for diagnosing personality disorders and illustrate its application through a case study.

Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization

This chapter reviews recent (2000-2005) personality disorder (PD) research, focusing on three major domains: assessment, comorbidity, and stability. (a) Substantial evidence has accrued favoring dimensional over categorical conceptualization of PD, and the five-factor model of personality is prominent as an integrating framework. Future directions include assessing dysfunction separately from traits and learning to utilize collateral information. (b) To address the pervasiveness and extent of comorbidity, researchers have begun to move beyond studying overlapping pairs or small sets of disorders and are developing broader, more integrated common-factor models that cross the Axis I-Axis II boundary. (c) Studies of PD stability have converged on the finding that PD features include both more acute, dysfunctional behaviors that resolve in relatively short periods, and maladaptive temperamental traits that are relatively more stable-similar to normal-range personality traits-with increasing stability until after 50 years of age. A new model for assessing PD-and perhaps all psychopathology-emerges from integrating these interrelated reconceptualizations.

Disentangling depressive personality disorder from avoidant, borderline, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders

Several studies have found that 3 personality disorders (PDs) tend to share moderate rates of comorbidity with depressive PD: avoidant, borderline, and obsessive-compulsive. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic criteria of each disorder in an effort to understand where areas of overlap may occur and to modify criteria sets where reasonable to reduce any degree of overlap. One thousand two hundred psychiatric outpatients were interviewed with the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders. The highest degree of comorbidity was observed between avoidant PD and depressive PD. Logistic regression analyses indicated that 2 criteria-avoidant criterion 5 and depressive criterion 2-could be removed from the diagnostic criteria sets and reduce the rates of overlap by as much as 15%. A factor analysis of the criteria of all 4 PDs indicated that there is a common clustering of many of the symptoms of avoidant, borderline, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive PDs and that borderline symptoms tend to cluster together most consistently. Avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality symptoms clustered in ways that may reflect a problem of how to engage with others, suggestive of an approach-avoidance conflict. Depressive PD symptoms clustered in a way suggestive of problems with anger that is directed toward oneself and others. The factor analysis results suggest that an organization of symptoms around themes of conflict may provide useful ways of understanding the personality patterns of these 4 disorders.

Depressive personality and dysthymia: evaluating symptom and syndrome overlap

BACKGROUND

Depressive Personality (DP) is being evaluated for future inclusion in DSM. One recurring issue has been conceptual and empirical redundancy with Dysthymia (i.e., Dysthymic Disorder; DD).

METHODS

The symptom and syndrome overlap of DP and DD were tested in a clinical sample (N = 125) using both self-report and clinician ratings.

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analyses of the DP and DD symptoms indicated that models which separate these two syndromes had a better fit than a model in which all symptoms were classified together, particularly for the clinician-rated data. At the same time, the syndromes were highly correlated. Binary diagnostic analysis showed that over 80% of the individuals meeting criteria for DP also met criteria for DD. As predicted, the best fit was obtained when the 'psychological' symptoms of DD-- low self-esteem and feelings of hopelessness-- were allowed to be part of both syndromes, and 82% of patients who met criteria for both DP and DD endorsed these two symptoms.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical ratings rather than structured diagnostic interviews were used. As well, some models required modification to improve fit.

CONCLUSIONS

Depressive personality traits can be empirically separated from DD symptoms, but including DP as a categorical diagnosis would lead to a high degree of diagnostic overlap. Much of this overlap is due to sharing psychological features in common. Revisions in the diagnostic system should find a way to incorporate depressive personality traits without insisting that they be diagnosed in a categorical manner.

Depressive personality disorder: rates of comorbidity with personality disorders and relations to the five-factor model of personality

Depressive personality disorder (DPD) is listed in the DSM-IV as one of the "Disorders for Further Study." In this investigation we examined (1) the rates of comorbidity of DPD with the 10 personality disorders (PDs) in the main text of DSM-IV, and (2) the convergent and discriminant validity of DPD in its relation to the 30 facet traits of the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM). One hundred and sixty-nine participants with psychiatric diagnoses were interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders Questionnaire (SCID-II) and completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). A total of 26 (15%) of the participants met diagnostic criteria for at least one of the 10 main text PDs, and 15 (9%) met criteria for DPD. Of those who met criteria for DPD, 10 (59%) of the participants also met criteria for one or more of the 10 main text PDs. Regression analyses indicated a four-facet trait set derived from the NEO PI-R thought to be uniquely associated with DPD accounted for a significant amount of variance in DPD SCID-II PD scores and was significantly larger for DPD than it was for the 9 of the 10 main text PDs; the sole exception was for avoidant PD. Diagnostically, DPD overlaps significantly with other PDs but is distinguishable in its unique relation with traits from the FFM.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Three Measures of Depressive Personality Disorder

Sixty-eight outpatients from a veterans' administration psychiatry clinic and community mental health center were assessed with 3 measures of depressive personality disorder (DPD)-the Diagnostic Interview for Depressive Personality Disorder (Gunderson, Phillips, Triebwasser, & Hirschfeld, 1994), the Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory (Huprich, Margrett, Barthelemy, & Fine, 1996), and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders (First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997a)-to evaluate their convergent and discriminant validity. Evidence supporting the measures' validity was mixed. The rate of convergence of depressive personality diagnoses across 3 measures was less than optimal, but the degree of intercorrelation among the measures was strong. Although depressive personality scores had moderate levels of intercorrelations with other personality disorders, the degree of intercorrelation decreased substantially after controlling for depressive symptoms. I conclude that further work is needed to strengthen the validity of measures of DPD.