Leslie C. Morey

The Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study: baseline Axis I/II and II/II diagnostic co-occurrence.

Objective: To describe baseline diagnostic co‐occurrence in the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study.

Stability of functional impairment in patients with schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, or obsessive–compulsive personality disorder over two years

BACKGROUND A defining feature of personality disorder (PD) is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that is stable over time. Follow-up and follow-along studies have shown considerable diagnostic instability of PDs, however, even over short intervals. What, then, about personality disorder is stable? The purpose of this study was to determine the stability of impairment in psychosocial functioning in patients with four different PDs, in contrast to patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and no PD, prospectively over a 2-year period. METHOD Six hundred treatment-seeking or treated patients were recruited primarily from clinical services in four metropolitan areas of the Northeastern USA. Patients were assigned to one of five diagnostic groups: schizotypal (STPD) (n=81), borderline (BPD) (n=155), avoidant (AVPD) (n=137), or obsessive-compulsive (OCPD) (n=142) personality disorders or MDD and no PD (n=85), based on the results of semi-structured interview assessments and self-report measures. Impairment in psychosocial functioning was measured using the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation (LIFE) at baseline and at three follow-up assessments. RESULTS Significant improvement in psychosocial functioning occurred in only three of seven domains of functioning and was largely the result of improvements in the MDD and no PD group. Patients with BPD or OCPD showed no improvement in functioning overall, but patients with BPD who experienced change in personality psychopathology showed some improvement in functioning. Impairment in social relationships appeared most stable in patients with PDs. CONCLUSION Impairment in functioning, especially social functioning, may be an enduring component of personality disorder.

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.

Two-Year Stability and Change of Schizotypal, Borderline, Avoidant, and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorders.

The authors examined the stability of schizotypal (STPD), borderline (BPD), avoidant (AVPD) and obsessive-compulsive (OCPD) personality disorders (PDs) over 2 years of prospective multiwave follow-up. Six hundred thirty-three participants recruited at 4 collaborating sites who met criteria for 1 or more of the 4 PDs or for major depressive disorder (MOD) without PD were assessed with semistructured interviews at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. Lifetable survival analyses revealed that the PD groups had slower time to remission than the MDD group. Categorically, PD remission rates range from 50% (AVPD) to 61% (STPD) for dropping below diagnostic threshold on a blind 24-month reassessment but range from 23% (STPD) to 38% (OCPD) for a more stringent definition of improvement. Dimensionally, these findings suggest that PDs may be characterized by maladaptive trait constellations that are stable in their structure (individual differences) but can change in severity or expression over time.

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.

Axis I and Axis II Disorders as Predictors of Prospective Suicide Attempts: Findings From the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study

This study examined diagnostic predictors of prospectively observed suicide attempts in a personality disorder (PD) sample. During 2 years of follow-up, 58 participants (9%) reported at least 1 definitive suicide attempt. Predictors that were examined include 4 PD diagnoses and selected Axis I diagnoses (baseline and course). Multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that baseline borderline personality disorder (BPD) and drug use disorders significantly predicted prospective suicide attempts. Controlling for baseline BPD diagnosis, proportional hazards analyses showed that worsening in the course of major depressive disorder (MDD) and of substance use disorders in the month preceding the attempt were also significant predictors. Therefore, among individuals diagnosed with PDs, exacerbation of Axis I conditions, particularly MDD and substance use, heightens risk for a suicide attempt.

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.

Associations in the Course of Personality Disorders and Axis I Disorders Over Time

In this study, the authors examined time-varying associations between schizotypal (STPD), borderline (BPD), avoidant (AVPD), or obsessive-compulsive (OCPD) personality disorders and co-occurring Axis I disorders in 544 adult participants from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. The authors tested predictions of specific longitudinal associations derived from a model of crosscutting psychobiological dimensions (L. J. Siever & K. L. Davis, 1991) with participants with the relevant Axis I disorders. The authors assessed participants at baseline and at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up evaluations. BPD showed significant longitudinal associations with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. AVPD was significantly associated with anxiety disorders (specifically social phobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder). Two of the four personality disorders under examination (STPD and OCPD) showed little or no association with Axis I disorders.

A Comparison of Cluster Analysis Techniques Withing a Sequential Validation Framework.

This study involved the comparison of 23 different methods of cluster analysis in a four-stage sequential validation design. These stages included derivation, replication, external validation, and cross-validation. Data were obtained from 750 alcohol abusers on a number of socio-behavioral variables. Results demonstrated that the solution given by Wards method of cluster analysis was particularly powerful in comparison to solutions yielded by other techniques.

Personality Assessment in DSM--5: Empirical support for rating Severity, Style, and Traits

Despite a general consensus that dimensional models are superior to the categorical representations of personality disorders in DSM-IV, proposals for how to depict personality pathology dimensions vary substantially. One important question involves how to separate clinical severity from the style of expression through which personality pathology manifests. This study empirically distinguished stylistic elements of personality pathology symptoms from the overall severity of personality disorder in a large, longitudinally assessed clinical sample (N = 605). Data suggest that generalized severity is the most important single predictor of current and prospective dysfunction, but that stylistic elements also indicate specific areas of difficulty. Normative personality traits tend to relate to the general propensity for personality pathology, but not stylistic elements of personality disorders. Overall, findings support a three-stage diagnostic strategy involving a global rating of personality disorder severity, ratings of parsimonious and discriminant valid stylistic elements of personality disorder, and ratings of normative personality traits.