The Relationship between Five-Factor Model and DSM-5 Personality Traits on Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (original) (raw)
Related papers
The purpose of this ex post facto study is to analyze the personality profile of outpatients who met criteria for borderline personality disorder according to the Five-Factor Model of personality. All patients (N = 52) completed the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE) Screening Questionnaire, the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS). The results show a high comorbidity with other DSM-IV-TR Axis II disorders, in particular with those from Cluster C. The BFQ average score indicates that the outpatients who met borderline criteria score lower than controls on all five dimensions, and especially on emotional stability. Correlations were computed between the BFQ and the IPDE scales in our sample. These results suggest that specific personality profile are linked to different comorbidity patterns. More than a half of our sample has clinically significant scores on Beck's scales. Surprisingly, depress...
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2012
The proposal for the diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5;American Psychiatric Association, in preparation) involves, in part, the use of elevated scores on dimensional personality traits. For instance, the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in the DSM-5 will require evidence of self-and interpersonal impairment as well as elevated scores on traits of emotional lability, anxiousness, separation insecurity, depressivity, impulsivity, risk taking, and hostility. Using a sample of individuals from the community , half of whom were receiving psychiatric treatment, we tested whether the summation of relevant personality trait scores, using data derived from a measure of the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM), would result in a construct that corresponds to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association, 2000) BPD construct as scored by expert consensus ratings. The DSM-IV and FFM BPD scores were significantly correlated (r ϭ .60) and generated highly similar patterns of relations (r icc ϭ .84) with key constructs from BPD's nomological network. These data should serve to allay concerns that the DSM-5's new diagnostic approach will be detrimental to the identification of BPD.
Objective: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a highly prevalent diagnosis in mental health care and includes a heterogeneous constellation of symptoms. As the field of personality disorder (PD) research moves to emphasize dimensional traits in its operationalization, it is important to determine how the alternative DSM-5 Section III personality trait dimensions differentiates such features in BPD patients versus comparison groups. To date no study has attempted such validation. Method: The current study examined the utility of the DSM-5 trait dimensions in differentiating patients with the categorical DSM-IV/5 diagnosis of BPD (n = 101) from systematically matched samples of other PD patients (n = 101) and healthy controls (n = 101). This was investigated using one-way ANOVA and multinomial logistic regression analyses. Results: Results indicated that Emotional Lability, Risk Taking, and Suspiciousness uniquely differentiated BPD patients from other PD patients, whereas Emotional Lability, Depressivity, and Suspiciousness uniquely differentiated BPD patients from healthy controls. Conclusion: Emotional Lability is in particular a key BPD feature of the proposed Section III model, whereas Suspiciousness also augments essential BPD features. Provided that these findings are replicated cross-culturally in forthcoming research, a more parsimonious traits operationalization of BPD features is warranted.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 1999
A self-report measure of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of person ality, NEO-PI-R, was administered to a sample of patients with borderline (BPD, N = 29) or avoidant PD (AVPD, N = 34), admit ted to a day treatment program, to investigate the NEO-PI-R profiles of the disorders, and the ability of NEO-PI-R to discrim inate between the two disorders. The diagnoses were assessed according to the LEAD standard. AVPD was associated with high levels of Neuroticism and Agreeableness, and low levels of Extraversion and Conscientiousness. BPD was associated with high levels of Neuroticism and low levels of Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. Eighty-eight percent of the AVPD group had high scores on Neuroticism and low scores on Extraversion, whereas 65% of the BPD group were high on Neuroticism and low on Agreeableness. The Extraversion and Agreeableness scales of NEO-PI-R discriminated between pa tients with BPD and those with AVPD. Patients with BPD scored significantly higher on the Angry Hostility and Impul siveness subscales of Neuroticism and significantly lower on three Extraversion subscales, three Agreeableness subscales, and one Conscientiousness subscale. At the DSM-IV criterion level, there were more significant relationships between the subscales of NEO-PI-R and the AVPD criteria than with the BPD criteria. The findings suggest that the FFM has good dis criminating ability regarding BPD and AVPD. However, there may be a closer conceptual relationship between the FFM and AVPD than between the FFM and BPD.
Objective: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) includes a heterogeneous constellation of symptoms operationalized with 9 categorical criteria. As the field of personality disorder (PD) research moves to emphasize dimensional traits in its oper-ationalization, it is important to delineate continuity between the 9 DSM-IV/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) categorical criteria for BPD and the trait dimensions in DSM-5 Section III. To date, no study has attempted such validation. Methods: We examined the associations between the 9 categorical DSM-IV/DSM-5 criteria for BPD and the trait dimensions of the alternative DSM-5 model for PDs in consecutively recruited psychiatric outpatients (N ¼ 142; 68% female; age: mean 29.02, SD 8.38). This was investigated by means of bivariate correlations, followed by multiple logistic regression analysis. Results: The categorical BPD criteria were associated with conceptually related DSM-5 Section III traits (P > 0.001), except for the criterion of chronic feelings of emptiness. Consistent with the proposed traits criteria for BPD in DSM-5 Section III, we found Emotional lability, Anxiousness, Separation insecurity, Depressivity, Impulsivity, Risk taking, and Hostility to capture conceptually coherent BPD categorical criteria, while Suspiciousness was also strongly associated with BPD criteria. At the domain level, this applied to Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. Notably, Emotional lability, Impulsivity, and Suspiciousness emerged as unique predictors of BPD (P > 0.05). Conclusions: In addition to the proposed BPD traits criteria, Suspiciousness and features of Psychoticism also augment BPD features. Provided that these findings are replicated in forthcoming research, a modified traits operationalization of BPD is warranted. Abré gé Objectif : Le trouble de la personnalité limite (TPL) comprend une constellation hétérogène de symptô mes concrétisés par neuf critères diagnostiques. Comme le domaine de la recherche sur les troubles de la personnalité tente de mettre l'accent sur les traits dimensionnels dans son opérationalisation, il est important de délimiter la continuité entre les neuf critères diag-nostiques du DSM-IV/DSM-5 pour le TPL et les dimensions de traits du chapitre 3 du DSM-5. Jusqu'ici, aucune e ´tude n'a tenté cette validation. Mé thode : Nous avons examiné l'association entre les 9 critères diagnostiques du DSM-IV/DSM-5 pour le TPL et les dimensions de traits du nouveau modèle du DSM-5 pour les troubles de la personnalité (TP) chez des patients psychiatriques externes recrutés consécutivement (N ¼ 142; 68% femmes; a ˆge M ¼ 29,02; ET ¼ 8,38). Cette recherche s'est faite a ` l'aide de corrélations bivariées suivies d'une analyse de régression logistique multiple.
Psychiatry Research, 2011
The diagnostic criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) are heterogeneous, and include an admixture of personality traits, behaviours, and symptoms. The BPD DSM factor structure has been extensively studied, even though results are not consistent. In this study we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to compare the five-factor model reported by Oldham, a three-factor model, and a unidimensional model of BPD diagnosis criteria. This study validates the findings of previous studies by performing a CFA with the DSM-IV BPD criteria and information derived from the DIB-R. A sample of 338 patients referred to our outpatient BPD program participated in the study. Results of the CFA support both the hypothesized unidimensional and the three-factor models, whereas the five-factor model was not confirmed. However, the three-factor model fits better than the unidimensional model. Thus, although the DSM-IV BPD criteria conceptualize BPD as a unidimensional structure, our results give support to the idea that the three-factor model could offer a better approach to further improve the current treatment of BPD, as well as lead to a better understanding of its ethiopathogenesis and comorbidity analysis.
2012
INTRODUCTION The clinical heterogeneity and elevated comorbidity of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) have suggested the possible existence of several factors or subtypes of this construct. Studies published to date mainly show that this diagnosis could be represented either as a 1-dimensional model or 3-factor model. However, most of the studies have analyzed the factorial structure of the BPD DSM-IV criteria only using semi-structured interviews. This study has aimed to analyze the factorial structure of BPD DSM-IV criteria used in the self-report PDQ-4+. METHOD A total of 159 psychiatric outpatients with suspicion of BPD diagnosis were evaluated. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) was performed for BPD criteria in PDQ-4+ and two previously defined structures were examined and compared: a 1-dimensional model and a 3-factor model. RESULTS Both models showed good fit indexes. However, the results of the CFA showed better goodness of fit indexes (χ(2)/gl; CFI; RMSEA; TLI; AIC and...
2020
Personality disorder assessment is currently in the midst of a major shift towards dimensional over categorical models for diagnosis (Hopwood et al., 2018). The hybrid DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), included in Section III of the manual, reflects a stage in this transition. By establishing a common personality impairment dimension (Criterion A) and allowing cross-cutting dimensional traits (Criterion B) to be shared among diagnoses, the AMPD mitigates comorbidity concerns and better aligns PD assessment with extant research. However, despite clear advantages over the Section II categorical model, the trait-based AMPD may still fail to adequately capture important dynamic PD-related constructs. Of the DSM-5 PDs, Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is arguably the most complex, comorbid, and difficult to align with a trait model (Zanderson et al., 2019). The purpose of the present review was to critically assess the ability of the AMPD to provide a unique, nuanced, and accurate representation of BPD pathology based on a detailed survey of its features. Overall, it was concluded that the AMPD provides an improved and elaborated conception of BPD compared to the purely categorical Section II model, but could benefit from an increased focus on contextual, dynamic, and identity-related factors as a means of exploring potentially more parsimonious models of PD covariance than what the AMPD is currently able to provide. Suggestions for future research directions are provided.
Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
A new approach to mental disorder taxonomy was recently proposed, the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). The aim of this study was to develop a specific version of the Dimensional Clinical Personality Inventory 2 (IDCP-2), a self-reported measure developed in Brazil for use in pathological personality traits assessment, focused on the assessment of traits related to BPD in accordance with the HiTOP model. In step 1 we developed new factors to cover all traits of BPD according to HiTOP. In step 2, data were collected from 207 adults from the community (N = 207; M age = 35.9). Participants completed the developed measure (IDCP Borderline Personality Disorder Scale; IDCP-BPD), and selected factors from IDCP-2, PID-5, FFBI and FFHI. Exploratory structural equation modeling (E-SEM) suggested a 3-factors solution for the grouping of the fifteen factors of the IDCP-BPD. Factors and total score reliability was good. Correlations between IDCP-BPD factors and external measures were coherent, corroborating our expectations. The bootstrap two-sample t-test comparing the healthy and pathological groups suggested good discrimination capacity of the IDCP-BPD factors, mainly the Fragility and Impotence feelings factors. Favorable evidence was found for the use of IDCP-BPD to BPD traits measurement. The new factors extend the coverage of IDCP-2 in measuring BPD symptoms. Correlations suggest that IDCP-BPD factors measure the traits considered as relevant according to HiTOP. Discriminant capacity of the factors also supports the use of the measure, although future studies must replicate this in samples composed of BPD patients.