Personality Disorders in the ICD-11: Spanish Validation of the PiCD and the SASPD in a Mixed Community and Clinical Sample.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gutierrez F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7961637 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders focuses on core personality dysfunction, while allowing the practitioner to classify three levels of severity (Mild Personality Disorder, Moderate Personality Disorder, and Severe Personality Disorder) and the option of specifying one or more prominent trait domain qualifiers (Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Disinhibition, Dissociality, and Anankastia). Additionally, the practitioner is also allowed to specify a Borderline Pattern qualifier. This article presents how the ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification may be applied in clinical practice using five brief cases. CASE PRESENTATION:(1) a 29-year-old woman with Severe Personality Disorder, Borderline Pattern, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity, Disinhibition, and Dissociality; (2) a 36-year-old man with Mild Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Detachment; (3) a 26-year-old man with Severe Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Detachment; (4) a 19-year-old woman with Personality Difficulty, and prominent traits of Negative Affectivity and Anankastia; (5) a 53-year-old man with Moderate Personality Disorder, and prominent traits of Anankastia and Dissociality. CONCLUSIONS:The ICD-11 Personality Disorder classification was applicable to five clinical cases, which were classified according to Personaity Disorder severity and trait domain qualifiers. We propose that the classification of severity may help inform clinical prognosis and intensity of treatment, whereas the coding of trait qualifiers may help inform the focus and style of treatment. Empirical investigation of such important aspects of clinical utility are warranted.
| S-EPMC6206910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Proposed for the 11th edition of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) is a dimensional trait model for the classification of personality disorder (Tyrer, Reed, & Crawford, 2015). The ICD-11 proposal consists of 5 broad domains: negative affective, detachment, dissocial, disinhibition, and anankastic (Mulder, Horwood, Tyrer, Carter, & Joyce, 2016). Several field trials have examined this proposal, yet none has included a direct measure of the trait model. The purpose of the current study was to develop and provide initial validation for the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), a self-report measure of this proposed 5-domain maladaptive trait model. Item selection and scale construction proceeded through 3 initial data collections assessing potential item performance. Two subsequent studies were conducted for scale validation. In Study 1, the PiCD was evaluated in a sample of 259 MTurk participants (who were or had been receiving mental health treatment) with respect to 2 measures of general personality structure: The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised and the 5-Dimensional Personality Test. In Study 2, the PiCD was evaluated in an additional sample of 285 participants with respect to 2 measures of maladaptive personality traits: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and the Computerized Adaptive Test for Personality Disorders. Study 3 provides an item-level exploratory structural equation model with the combined samples from Studies 1 and 2. The results are discussed with respect to the validity of the measure and the potential benefits for future research in having a direct, self-report measure of the ICD-11 trait proposal. (PsycINFO Database Record
| S-EPMC5930359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The International Classification of Diseases-11th edition (ICD-11) includes a dimensional model of personality disorder assessing five domains of maladaptive personality. To avoid unnecessary complexity, the ICD-11 model includes assessment of personality traits only at the domain level. A measure exists to assess the domains of the ICD-11 model (the Personality Inventory for ICD-11), yet a more rich and useful assessment of personality is provided at the facet level. We used items from the scales assessing the five-factor model of personality disorder to develop the Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (FFiCD), a new 121-item, 20-facet, self-report measure of the ICD-11 maladaptive personality domains at the facet level. Further, the FFiCD includes 47 short scales organized beneath the facets-at the "nuance" level. Items were selected and evaluated empirically across two independent data collections, and the resulting scales were further validated in a third data collection. Correlational and factor analytic results comparing the scales of the FFiCD to the five-factor model, Personality Inventory for ICD-11, and Personality Inventory for DSM-5 supported the validity of the theoretical structure of the FFiCD and the ICD-11 model. The FFiCD may be a useful instrument for clinicians and researchers interested in a more specific assessment of maladaptive personality according to the dimensional ICD-11 personality disorder model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC6928398 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Empirical soundness and international robustness of the PID5BF+M, a shortened version of the PID-5 developed for simultaneous evaluation of maladaptive personality traits in the DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 models for personality disorders, was recently confirmed in 16 samples from different countries. Because the modified PID5BF+ scale (36 items) was extracted from the complete 220-item PID-5, an independent evaluation of psychometric properties of a stand-alone PID5BF+M is still missing. Objectives: The present study evaluated the validity and reliability of the 36-item PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. It also assessed associations between the Borderline Pattern qualifier and trait domain qualifiers. Methods: Two non-clinical samples meeting the inclusion criteria were employed in the study. Sample 1 (n = 614) completed the 220-item PID-5; Sample 2 (n = 1,040) completed the independent 36-item PID5BF+M. Participants were from all 14 regions of the Czech Republic. The Borderline Pattern qualifier was evaluated using a shortened IPDEQ screener. Results: The proposed latent structure of the independent PID5BF+M was confirmed, with an exception of the Disinhibition domain. The results confirmed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the measure, as well as some support for the measurement invariance of the independent PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. Significant associations between the Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism qualifiers and the IPDEQ items for the emotionally unstable personality disorder of both impulsive and borderline types confirmed good predictive validity of the PID5BF+M in pursuing borderline psychopathology within the ICD-11 model. Conclusions: The independent PID5BF+M was found to be a valid and reliable tool for evaluation of the ICD-11 trait model. However, the Disinhibition domain deserves further investigation in clinical samples as well as in international community samples.
| S-EPMC8187568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11) defines personality disorder according to personality functioning, which relates to self- and interpersonal functioning. The aim of the present study was to assess the relationship between mentalizing and personality functioning in patients with subthreshold or diagnosed borderline personality disorder. A total of 116 eligible participants were included. Mentalizing was assessed using the Mentalization Questionnaire (MZQ), personality functioning (self- and interpersonal functioning) was assessed using the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF), and borderline severity was assessed using the Zanarini Rating Scale (ZAN-BPD). Mediation analysis was employed to test if mentalizing accounted for the relationship between borderline severity and self- and interpersonal functioning. We found a significant relationship between borderline severity and both subscales of the LPFS-BF. Mentalizing fully and significantly mediated the relationship between borderline severity and interpersonal functioning. However, mentalizing only partly mediated the relationship between borderline severity and self-functioning. Controlling for the covariates gender and age did not impact the results. Mentalizing is likely to be involved in the ICD-11 model of personality functioning, especially interpersonal functioning. This could emphasize the relevance of therapy aimed at strengthening mentalizing abilities when treating personality pathology in general and people with borderline personality disorder in particular. However, self-functioning may be more nuanced, as aspects other than mentalizing also influence self-functioning. The study is explorative in nature and has methodological limitations that require caution in the interpretation and generalizability.
| S-EPMC8044580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDisorders of impulsivity are common, functionally impairing, and highly relevant across different clinical and research settings. Few structured clinical interviews for the identification and diagnosis of impulse control disorders exist, and none have been validated in a community sample in terms of psychometric properties.MethodsThe Minnesota Impulse control disorders Interview (MIDI v2.0) was administered to an enriched sample of 293 non-treatment seeking adults aged 18-35 years, recruited using media advertisements in two large US cities. In addition to the MIDI, participants undertook extended clinical interview for other mental disorders, the Barratt impulsiveness questionnaire, and the Padua obsessive-compulsive inventory. The psychometric properties of the MIDI were characterized.ResultsIn logistic regression, the MIDI showed good concurrent validity against the reference measures (versus gambling disorder interview, p < 0.001; Barratt impulsiveness attentional and non-planning scores p < 0.05), and good discriminant validity versus primarily non-impulsive symptoms, including against anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms (all p > 0.05). Test re-test reliability was excellent (0.95).ConclusionsThe MIDI has good psychometric properties and thus may be a valuable interview tool for clinical and research studies involving impulse control disorders. Further research is needed to better understanding the optimal diagnostic classification and neurobiology of these neglected disorders.
| S-EPMC5985960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ICD-11 personality disorder model is the first fully dimensional assessment of personality pathology. It consists of a personality disorder (PD) dysfunction-severity dimension, which encompasses both self- and interpersonal dysfunction, and six optional qualifiers for five prominent personality traits-Negative Affectivity (NA), Detachment (DET), Dissociality (DSL), Disinhibition (DSN), and Anankastia (ANK)-plus a borderline pattern that is defined by the criteria of DSM-IV borderline PD. This article reports on the development of a new self-report measure to assess self- and interpersonal dysfunction and the five trait qualifiers. It is the first comprehensive measure of the ICD-11 PD model in that (a) it is the only one to include both PD dysfunction-severity as well as trait scales and because (b) it is based on the Clinical Description and Diagnostic Guidelines, which are more detailed than the "statistical" model description that is currently on the ICD-11 website. The authors wrote 992 items and then reduced the pool to 300 items by eliminating redundancy and selecting the consensus best few items for each subconstruct. Data were collected using an online sample of 383 Prolific workers. Using exploratory factor analysis, seven domain scales were developed, each of which contained two to four scales assessing components of the domain. These preliminary scales' psychometrics were excellent, as were the domains' and their components' convergent and discriminant validity, with a few generally minor exceptions. Structural analyses at the component level revealed a three-factor structure consisting of two moderately correlated Internalizing factors, one centered on Self Dysfunction with two NA components and a DSN component (Distractibility) and the other on Interpersonal Dysfunction with DET and ANK components; as well as an Externalizing factor with DSL and a DSN component (Reckless Impulsivity) that was uncorrelated with the other two factors. Two aspects of the results in particular are striking: (1) ANK was not the opposite end of a DSN dimension, but rather contributed to an Internalizing Interpersonal Dysfunction dimension and (2) DSN had both an Internalizing and an Externalizing component. Implications of the findings and study limitations are discussed.
| S-EPMC8311289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A large body of research has focused on identifying the optimal number of dimensions - or spectra - to model individual differences in psychopathology. Recently, it has become increasingly clear that ostensibly competing models with varying numbers of spectra can be synthesized in empirically derived hierarchical structures. METHODS AND MATERIALS:We examined the convergence between top-down (bass-ackwards or sequential principal components analysis) and bottom-up (hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis) statistical methods for elucidating hierarchies to explicate the joint hierarchical structure of clinical and personality disorders. Analyses examined 24 clinical and personality disorders based on semi-structured clinical interviews in an outpatient psychiatric sample (n=2900). RESULTS:The two methods of hierarchical analysis converged on a three-tier joint hierarchy of psychopathology. At the lowest tier, there were seven spectra - disinhibition, antagonism, core thought disorder, detachment, core internalizing, somatoform, and compulsivity - that emerged in both methods. These spectra were nested under the same three higher-order superspectra in both methods: externalizing, broad thought dysfunction, and broad internalizing. In turn, these three superspectra were nested under a single general psychopathology spectrum, which represented the top tier of the hierarchical structure. CONCLUSIONS:The hierarchical structure mirrors and extends upon past research, with the inclusion of a novel compulsivity spectrum, and the finding that psychopathology is organized in three superordinate domains. This hierarchy can thus be used as a flexible and integrative framework to facilitate psychopathology research with varying levels of specificity (i.e., focusing on the optimal level of detailed information, rather than the optimal number of factors).
| S-EPMC5643220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The promise of replacing the diagnostic categories of personality disorder with a better-grounded system has been only partially met. We still need to understand whether our main dimensional taxonomies, those of the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are the same or different, and elucidate whether a unified structure is possible. We also need truly independent pathological domains, as they have shown unacceptable overlap so far. To inquire into these points, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD) were administered to 677 outpatients. Disattenuated correlation coefficients between 0.84 and 0.93 revealed that both systems share four analogous traits: negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality/antagonism, and disinhibition. These traits proved scalar equivalence too, such that scores in the two questionnaires are roughly interchangeable. These four domains plus psychoticism formed a theoretically consistent and well-fitted five-factor structure, but they overlapped considerably, thereby reducing discriminant validity. Only after the extraction of a general personality disorder factor (g-PD) through bifactor analysis, we could attain a comprehensive model bearing mutually independent traits.
| S-EPMC8055818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) is an established tool for assessing personality disorder (PD) traits that was developed based on section III of the DSM-5. It is composed of 220 items, organized into 25 facets, which are distributed among five domains. The psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the PID-5 remain to be demonstrated. Two samples were embodied in this study that included 3,550 undergraduates and 406 clinical patients. To probe the structure of the PID-5, parallel analyses were conducted to explore the unidimensionality of its 25 facets and a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were carried out to confirm the 25 lower-order facets and their distribution among five higher-order domains. Then, the PID-5 was employed to measure the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models and to explore the relationship of DSM-IV categorical PDs with DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality traits. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted to probe how well DSM-IV categorical PDs correspond with maladaptive personality traits specified in the DSM-5 and five ICD-11 domains. The respective average internal reliability coefficients of the 25 facets obtained for undergraduate and clinical patient samples were 0.76 and 0.81, those obtained for the five DSM-5 domains were 0.89 and 0.91, and those obtained for the five ICD-11 domains were 0.87 and 0.89. Serial CFAs confirmed the rationality of the PID-5's lower-order 25-facet structure and higher-order five-domain structure in both samples. Correlation and regression analyses showed that DSM-5 specified traits explain the variance in PD presentation with a manifold stronger correlation (R 2 = 0.24-0.44) than non-specified traits (R 2 = 0.04-0.12). Overall, the PID-5 was shown to be a reliable, stable, and structurally valid assessment tool that captures pathological personality traits related to DSM-5 and ICD-11 PDs.
| S-EPMC8033014 | biostudies-literature