Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
We reply to Wright et al.'s (2023) commentary and suggestion that personality trait models would be the preferred way to reconfigure the personality disorders (PDs). Though we agree that personality trait models are powerful descriptive tools, we highlight that they lack definitional or explanatory power, and that is why they have not been able to define or distinguish what PDs are (Hopwood, 2018; Mõttus et al., 2020; Pincus, 2011). Scientific models must do more than describe; they must define. This is why we propose a specific interpersonal model, contemporary integrative interpersonal theory, and why a generic interpersonal model has been formally adopted in psychiatric classification (e.g., International Classification of Diseases; 11th ed.; World Health Organization, 2019) but traits remain optional adjunct descriptors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0001172 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!