Literature DB >> 27618342

Comparing the dependability and associations with functioning of the DSM-5 Section III trait model of personality pathology and the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder model.

Michael Chmielewski1, Camilo J Ruggero2, Roman Kotov3, Keke Liu2, Robert F Krueger4.   

Abstract

Two competing models of personality psychopathology are included in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013); the traditional personality disorder (PD) model included in Section II and an alternative trait-based model included in Section III. Numerous studies have examined the validity of the alternative trait model and its official assessment instrument, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). However, few studies have directly compared the trait-based model to the traditional PD model empirically in the same dataset. Moreover, to our knowledge, only a single study (Suzuki, Griffin, & Samuel, 2015) has examined the dependability of the PID-5, which is an essential component of construct validity for traits (Chmielewski & Watson, 2009; McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2011). The current study directly compared the dependability of the DSM-5 traits, as assessed by the PID-5, and the traditional PD model, as assessed by the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4+), in a large undergraduate sample. In addition, it evaluated and compared their associations with functioning, another essential component of personality pathology. In general, our findings indicate that most DSM-5 traits demonstrate high levels of dependability that are superior to the traditional PD model; however, some of the constructs assessed by the PID-5 may be more state like. The models were roughly equivalent in terms of their associations with functioning. The current results provide additional support for the validity of PID-5 and the DSM-5 Section III personality pathology model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27618342     DOI: 10.1037/per0000213

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Personal Disord        ISSN: 1949-2723


  5 in total

Review 1.  A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.

Authors:  Johannes Zimmermann; André Kerber; Katharina Rek; Christopher J Hopwood; Robert F Krueger
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 5.285

2.  Validity and utility of Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): III. Emotional dysfunction superspectrum.

Authors:  David Watson; Holly F Levin-Aspenson; Monika A Waszczuk; Christopher C Conway; Tim Dalgleish; Michael N Dretsch; Nicholas R Eaton; Miriam K Forbes; Kelsie T Forbush; Kelsey A Hobbs; Giorgia Michelini; Brady D Nelson; Martin Sellbom; Tim Slade; Susan C South; Matthew Sunderland; Irwin Waldman; Michael Witthöft; Aidan G C Wright; Roman Kotov; Robert F Krueger
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 79.683

3.  Validity and utility of Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): I. Psychosis superspectrum.

Authors:  Roman Kotov; Katherine G Jonas; William T Carpenter; Michael N Dretsch; Nicholas R Eaton; Miriam K Forbes; Kelsie T Forbush; Kelsey Hobbs; Ulrich Reininghaus; Tim Slade; Susan C South; Matthew Sunderland; Monika A Waszczuk; Thomas A Widiger; Aidan G C Wright; David H Zald; Robert F Krueger; David Watson
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 49.548

4.  Maladaptive personality traits and romantic relationship satisfaction: A monozygotic co-twin control analysis.

Authors:  Sylia Wilson; Irene J Elkins; Jessica L Bair; Victoria C Oleynick; Stephen M Malone; Matt McGue; William G Iacono
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2018-05

5.  Psychometric study of the brazilian version of the personality inventory for DSM-5-paper-and-pencil version.

Authors:  Ana Maria Barchi-Ferreira; Flávia de Lima Osório
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 5.435

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.