Andrew E. Skodol

Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5

BACKGROUND DSM-IV-TR suggests that clinicians should assess clinically relevant personality traits that do not necessarily constitute a formal personality disorder (PD), and should note these traits on Axis II, but DSM-IV-TR does not provide a trait model to guide the clinician. Our goal was to provide a provisional trait model and a preliminary corresponding assessment instrument, in our roles as members of the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Workgroup and workgroup advisors. METHOD An initial list of specific traits and domains (broader groups of traits) was derived from DSM-5 literature reviews and workgroup deliberations, with a focus on capturing maladaptive personality characteristics deemed clinically salient, including those related to the criteria for DSM-IV-TR PDs. The model and instrument were then developed iteratively using data from community samples of treatment-seeking participants. The analytic approach relied on tools of modern psychometrics (e.g. item response theory models). RESULTS A total of 25 reliably measured core elements of personality description emerged that, together, delineate five broad domains of maladaptive personality variation: negative affect, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism. CONCLUSIONS We developed a maladaptive personality trait model and corresponding instrument as a step on the path toward helping users of DSM-5 assess traits that may or may not constitute a formal PD. The inventory we developed is reprinted in its entirety in the Supplementary online material, with the goal of encouraging additional refinement and development by other investigators prior to the finalization of DSM-5. Continuing discussion should focus on various options for integrating personality traits into DSM-5.

An invariant dimensional liability model of gender differences in mental disorder prevalence: evidence from a national sample.

Epidemiological studies of categorical mental disorders consistently report that gender differences exist in many disorder prevalence rates and that disorders are often comorbid. Can a dimensional multivariate liability model be developed to clarify how gender impacts diverse, comorbid mental disorders? We pursued this possibility in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; N = 43,093). Gender differences in prevalence were systematic such that women showed higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders, and men showed higher rates of antisocial personality and substance use disorders. We next investigated patterns of disorder comorbidity and found that a dimensional internalizing-externalizing liability model fit the data well, where internalizing is characterized by mood and anxiety disorders, and externalizing is characterized by antisocial personality and substance use disorders. This model was gender invariant, indicating that observed gender differences in prevalence rates originate from women and mens different average standings on latent internalizing and externalizing liability dimensions. As hypothesized, women showed a higher mean level of internalizing, while men showed a higher mean level of externalizing. We discuss implications of these findings for understanding gender differences in psychopathology and for classification and intervention.

Toward a Model for Assessing Level of Personality Functioning in DSM–5, Part I: A Review of Theory and Methods

Personality disorders are associated with fundamental disturbances of self and interpersonal relations, problems that vary in severity within and across disorders. This review surveyed clinician-rated measures of personality psychopathology that focus on self–other dimensions to explore the feasibility and utility of constructing a scale of severity of impairment in personality functioning for DSM–5. Robust elements of the instruments were considered in creating a continuum of personality functioning based on aspects of identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy. Building on preliminary findings (Morey et al., 2011/this issue), the proposed Levels of Personality Functioning will be subjected to extensive empirical testing in the DSM–5 field trials and elsewhere. The resulting version of this severity measure is expected to have clinical utility in identifying personality psychopathology, planning treatment, building the therapeutic alliance, and studying treatment course and outcome.

Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM-5.

The DSM-IV model of personality disorders is composed of trait sets arranged into 10 theoretically distinct, polythetically assessed categories, with little regard for how the traits comprising these disorders are interrelated and structured. Research since the publication of DSM-III has shown that this model is untenable. The question is not whether this model needs revision; rather, the question is how to move from the existing DSM-IV framework to a model better connected with data. Empirically-based models of personality trait variation provide a starting point for DSM-5, and ongoing research will be used to delineate further the empirical structure of personality traits in the pathological range. The ultimate goal is to frame future DSMs in a way that is maximally useful for clinicians as well as researchers. It is also critical to understand that the DSM-5 is intended to be a living document that will facilitate novel inquiry and clinical applications, as opposed to a document designed to promote and perpetuate a fixed set of constructs. Thus, we view a proposed trait system as a first step on a path to a well-validated, clinically-useful structure.

Personality Disorders in DSM-5

A substantive revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) last occurred in 1994; therefore, the mental health field should anticipate significant changes to the classification of mental disorders in the fifth edition. Since DSM-5 Work Groups have recently proposed revisions for the major diagnostic classes of mental disorders, an article on the current status of the personality disorders (PDs) is timely. This article reviews scientific principles that have influenced the development of proposed changes for the assessment and diagnosis of personality psychopathology in DSM-5, presents the proposed model as of the summer of 2011, summarizes rationales for the changes, and discusses critiques of the model. Scientific principles were articulated for DSM-5 more than a decade ago; their application to the process has not been straightforward, however. Work Group members have labored to improve the DSM-5 approach to personality and PDs to make the classification more valid and more clinically useful. The current model continues to be a work in progress.

Proposed changes in personality and personality disorder assessment and diagnosis for DSM-5 part I: description and rationale

A major reconceptualization of personality psychopathology has been proposed for DSM-5 that identifies core impairments in personality functioning, pathological personality traits, and prominent pathological personality types. A comprehensive personality assessment consists of four components: levels of personality functioning, personality disorder types, pathological personality trait domains and facets, and general criteria for personality disorder. This four-part assessment focuses attention on identifying personality psychopathology with increasing degrees of specificity, based on a clinicians available time, information, and expertise. In Part I of this two-part article, we describe the components of the new model and present brief theoretical and empirical rationales for each. In Part II, we will illustrate the clinical application of the model with vignettes of patients with varying degrees of personality psychopathology, to show how assessments might be conducted and diagnoses reached.

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) : A Dimensional Alternative to Traditional Nosologies

The reliability and validity of traditional taxonomies are limited by arbitrary boundaries between psychopathology and normality, often unclear boundaries between disorders, frequent disorder co-occurrence, heterogeneity within disorders, and diagnostic instability. These taxonomies went beyond evidence available on the structure of psychopathology and were shaped by a variety of other considerations, which may explain the aforementioned shortcomings. The Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model has emerged as a research effort to address these problems. It constructs psychopathological syndromes and their components/subtypes based on the observed covariation of symptoms, grouping related symptoms together and thus reducing heterogeneity. It also combines co-occurring syndromes into spectra, thereby mapping out comorbidity. Moreover, it characterizes these phenomena dimensionally, which addresses boundary problems and diagnostic instability. Here, we review the development of the HiTOP and the relevant evidence. The new classification already covers most forms of psychopathology. Dimensional measures have been developed to assess many of the identified components, syndromes, and spectra. Several domains of this model are ready for clinical and research applications. The HiTOP promises to improve research and clinical practice by addressing the aforementioned shortcomings of traditional nosologies. It also provides an effective way to summarize and convey information on risk factors, etiology, pathophysiology, phenomenology, illness course, and treatment response. This can greatly improve the utility of the diagnosis of mental disorders. The new classification remains a work in progress. However, it is developing rapidly and is poised to advance mental health research and care significantly as the relevant science matures.

Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part II: Empirical articulation of a core dimension of personality pathology

The extensive comorbidity among Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM–IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) personality disorders might be compelling evidence of essential commonalities among these disorders reflective of a general level of personality functioning that in itself is highly relevant to clinical decision making. This study sought to identify key markers of such a level, thought to reflect a core dimension of personality pathology involving impairments in the capacities of self and interpersonal functioning, and to empirically articulate a continuum of severity of these problems for DSM–5. Using measures of hypothesized core dimensions of personality pathology, a description of a continuum of severity of personality pathology was developed. Potential markers at various levels of severity of personality pathology were identified using item response theory (IRT) in 2 samples of psychiatric patients. IRT-based estimates of participants’ standings on a latent dimension of personality pathology were significantly related to the diagnosis of DSM–IV personality disorder, as well as to personality disorder comorbidity. Further analyses indicated that this continuum could be used to capture the distribution of pathology severity across the range of DSM–IV personality disorders. The identification of a continuum of personality pathology consisting of impairments in self and interpersonal functioning provides an empirical foundation for a “levels of personality functioning” rating proposed as part of a DSM–5 personality disorder diagnostic formulation.

Personality in DSM-5: Helping delineate personality disorder content and framing the metastructure

The transition from the Diagnostic and Statistical Model of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision [DSM–IV–TR]; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) to the fifth edition (DSM–5) represents an unprecedented opportunity to integrate dimensional personality trait models into the official nosology. Not surprisingly, a variety of issues have arisen in contemplating this challenging integration. In this article, we address how a dimensional personality trait model could be a helpful component of DSM–5, from the perspective of our roles as work group members and advisors involved in the creation of a trait model and corresponding assessment instrument. We focus in particular on two potential roles for a trait model in DSM–5 that are under official consideration. First, a dimensional personality trait model might be helpful in delineating the content of personality disorders. Second, a trait model might assist in organizing the “metastructure” of DSM–5 (i.e., the arrangement of chapters and other broader classificatory rubrics).

The Structure and Predictive Validity of the Internalizing Disorders

Multivariate comorbidity research indicates mood and anxiety (internalizing) disorders share one or more common liabilities, but categorical, dimensional, and hybrid accounts of these liabilities have not been directly compared. We modeled seven internalizing disorders in a nationally representative sample of 43,093 individuals via confirmatory factor, latent class, exploratory factor mixture, and exploratory structural equation modeling analyses. A two-dimensional (distress-fear) liability structure fit best and replicated across gender, assessment waves, and lifetime/12-month diagnoses. These liabilities, not disorder-specific variation, predicted future internalizing pathology, suicide attempts, angina, and ulcer.