Susanne Hörz-Sagstetter1, Ludwig Ohse2, Leonie Kampe2,3. 1. Psychologische Hochschule Berlin (PHB), Am Köllnischen Park 2, 10179, Berlin, Germany. s.hoerz@psychologische-hochschule.de. 2. Psychologische Hochschule Berlin (PHB), Am Köllnischen Park 2, 10179, Berlin, Germany. 3. Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Klinikum Itzehoe, Germany.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Thomas A Widiger; Bo Bach; Michael Chmielewski; Lee Anna Clark; Colin DeYoung; Christopher J Hopwood; Roman Kotov; Robert F Krueger; Joshua D Miller; Leslie C Morey; Stephanie N Mullins-Sweatt; Christopher J Patrick; Aaron L Pincus; Douglas B Samuel; Martin Sellbom; Susan C South; Jennifer L Tackett; David Watson; Mark H Waugh; Aidan G C Wright; Johannes Zimmermann; R Michael Bagby; David C Cicero; Christopher C Conway; Barbara De Clercq; Anna R Docherty; Nicholas R Eaton; Kelsie T Forbush; J D Haltigan; Masha Y Ivanova; Robert D Latzman; Donald R Lynam; Kristian E Markon; Ulrich Reininghaus; Katherine M Thomas Journal: J Pers Assess Date: 2018-05-10
Authors: Leslie C Morey; Christopher J Hopwood; John G Gunderson; Andrew E Skodol; M Tracie Shea; Shirley Yen; Robert L Stout; Mary C Zanarini; Carlos M Grilo; Charles A Sanislow; Thomas H McGlashan Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2006-11-23 Impact factor: 7.723