The twofold diagnosis of personality disorder: How do personality dysfunction and pathological traits increment each other at successive levels of the trait hierarchy?

Besides the categorical classification of personality disorders (PDs) in Section II of the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), which has been transferred as such from DSM-IV, Section III provides an alternative model to stimulate further research on the dimensional conceptualization of PDs. In this alternative system, a PD diagnosis is based on 2 essential criteria: impaired personality functioning and the presence of pathological traits. One topic that warrants further research concerns the incremental validity of these 2 components.

Factorial validity of the Personality Adjective Checklist in a Dutch-speaking sample.

We examined the factorial structure of the Dutch version of the Personality Adjective Checklist (PACL-D) in a Belgian sample of 3,012 community-dwelling adults. Exploratory factor analyses revealed a 5-factor structure (Neurotic, Aggressive/Dominant, Introverted vs. Extraverted, Conscientious, and Cooperative), that showed considerable overlap with 3 of the Big Five factors (i.

Personality disorder dysfunction versus traits: structural and conceptual issues.

As it stands now, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, in press) will maintain the categorical model and criteria distinguishing the 10 personality disorders (PDs) described in the fourth edition of the manual (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). An alternative diagnostic proposal based on two criteria, being impaired personality functioning and the presence of maladaptive traits, will be referred to a special section for further research and clinical evaluation.

Hierarchical structure of maladaptive personality traits in older adults: joint factor analysis of the PID-5 and the DAPP-BQ.

In DSM-5, the categorical model and criteria for the 10 personality disorders included in DSM-IV will be reprinted in Section II. Moreover, an alternative dimensional classification model will appear in Section III. This alternative DSM-5 proposal for the diagnosis of a personality disorder is based on two fundamental criteria: impairments in personality functioning (Criterion A) and the presence of pathological personality traits (Criterion B).

Validation of the FFM PD count technique for screening personality pathology in later middle-aged and older adults.

Research on the applicability of the five factor model (FFM) to capture personality pathology coincided with the development of a FFM personality disorder (PD) count technique, which has been validated in adolescent, young, and middle-aged samples. This study extends the literature by validating this technique in an older sample. Five alternative FFM PD counts based upon the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) are computed and evaluated in terms of both convergent and divergent validity with the Assessment of DSM-IV Personality Disorders Questionnaire (shortly ADP-IV; DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth edition).

The structure of personality disorders: comparing the DSM-IV-TR Axis II classification with the five-factor model framework using structural equation modeling.

Earlier factor analytical studies on the empirical validity of the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychological Association, 2000) Axis II classification have offered little support for the current three-cluster structure. In his large-scale meta-analysis of previously published personality disorder correlation matrices, O'Connor (2005) found four factors, corresponding to the neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness domains of the five-factor model of personality. In the present study, this dimensional four-factor model and the categorical DSM three-cluster structure were fitted to the Assessment of DSM-IV Personality Disorders questionnaire (ADP-IV; Schotte & De Doncker, 1994) scale scores using structural equation modelling.