Author:

Keywords:

Science & Technology, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Psychiatry, PID5BF+M, personality disorder, person-centered, personality types, personality clusters, LATENT PROFILE ANALYSIS, SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS, EATING-DISORDERS, TRAIT MODEL, PSYCHOPATHOLOGY, PROTOTYPES, RESILIENT, INVENTORY, CRITERION, DISTRESS, PID5BF + M, 1103 Clinical Sciences, 1117 Public Health and Health Services, 1701 Psychology, 3202 Clinical sciences

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Both the ICD-11 classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (DSM-5 AMPD) conceptualize personality pathology in a dimensional way, but differ in the way they carve up their respective pathological personality domains. Recently, a combination of ICD-11 and DSM-5 AMPD descriptive pathological personality traits, the Modified Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form Plus (PID5BF + M), was developed. THE CURRENT STUDY: We investigated the utility of the additional ANANKASTIA domain (not represented in the DSM-5 AMPD) as well as of the additional PSYCHOTICISM domain (not represented in the ICD-11 model) in the identification of meaningful pathological personality domain clusters based on the PID5BF + M. Next to the classical 2- and 3-cluster solutions, we examined whether the presence of the additional ANANKASTIA domain would also gave rise to a meaningful 4-cluster solution. We then validated these clusters by investigating differences between them in mean DSM-5 Section II cluster A, B, and C personality disorder scores. Finally, we investigated whether cluster membership was able to differentiate between levels of identity functioning, a key feature of personality disorder severity in both the ICD-11 model and the DSM-5 AMPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a Flemish community sample of 242 participants, and applied k-means cluster analyses in a two-step manner on PID5BF + M domains to investigate 2-, 3-, and 4-cluster solutions. We used MANOVAs to examine differences between clusters in PID5BF + M domains, DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II Assessment of Personality disorders (ADP-IV) cluster A, B, and C scores, and Self-Concept and Identity Measure (SCIM) scores. RESULTS: Cluster analyses on PID5BF + M pathological personality domains (1) revealed meaningful 2-, 3-, and 4-cluster solutions, with the 4-cluster solution explaining the most variance in the clustering variables, (2) allowed to identify a classical Overcontrolled cluster which DSM-5 AMPD PID-5 does not, and (3) demonstrated the utility of representing ANANKASTIA and DISINHIBITON as separate pathological personality domains. PID5BF + M clusters (5) were informative of DSM-5 Section II cluster A, B, and C personality disorder scores and (6) showed different levels of clinical-developmental Identity functioning. CONCLUSION: Current results demonstrate the utility of a combined ICD-11/DSM-5 AMPD view from a person-centered perspective.