Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

  • Personality Disorders (K Bertsch, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Psychiatry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD.

Recent Findings

A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges.

Summary

The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

  2. World Health Organization. International classification of diseases ICD-10. 10th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.

  3. Hengartner MP, Zimmermann J, Wright AGC. Personality pathology. In: Zeigler-Hill V, Shackelford T, editors. The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences: volume III: applications of personality and individual differences. London: Sage; 2018. p. 3–35. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526451248.n1.

  4. Wright AGC, Zimmermann J. At the nexus of science and practice: answering basic clinical questions in personality disorder assessment and diagnosis with quantitative modeling techniques. In: Huprich SK, editor. Personality disorders: toward theoretical and empirical integration in diagnosis and assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2015. p. 109–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/14549-006.

  5. Widiger TA, Trull TJ. Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: shifting to a dimensional model. Am Psychol. 2007;62:71–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Krueger RF. Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era. Personal Disord. 2013;4:355–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000028.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tyrer P, Reed GM, Crawford MJ. Classification, assessment, prevalence, and effect of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015;385:717–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61995-4.

    Google Scholar 

  8. World Health Organization. ICD-11 for mortality and morbidity statistics (ICD-11 MMS). 2018. https://icd.who.int.

  9. Mulder R, Tyrer P. Diagnosis and classification of personality disorders: novel approaches. Curr Opin Psychiatr. 2019;32:27–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000461.

  10. Zimmermann J. Paradigmenwechsel in der Klassifikation von Persönlichkeitsstörungen: Die neuen Modelle in DSM-5 und ICD-11. Psychotherapie im Dialog. 2014;15:e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1390426.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pincus AL. Some comments on nomology, diagnostic process, and narcissistic personality disorder in the DSM-5 proposal for personality and personality disorders. Personal Disord. 2011;2:41–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021191.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Skodol AE, Morey LC, Bender DS, Oldham JM. The ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5. Personal Disord. 2013;4:342–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000029.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zachar P, Krueger RF, Kendler KS. Personality disorder in DSM-5: an oral history. Psychol Med. 2016;46:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715001543.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Skodol AE. Personality disorders in DSM-5. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2012;8:317–44. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bender DS, Morey LC, Skodol AE. Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part I: a review of theory and methods. J Pers Assess. 2011;93:332–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.583808.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE. Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med. 2012;42:1879–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Tyrer P, Crawford M, Mulder RT, Blashfield RK, Farnam A, Fossati A, et al. The rationale for the reclassification of personality disorder in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Personal Ment Health. 2011;5:246–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.190.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Reed GM. Progress in developing a classification of personality disorders for ICD-11. World Psychiatry. 2018;17:227–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20533.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Herpertz SC. Neue Wege der Klassifikation von Persönlichkeitsstörungen in ICD-11. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2018;86:150–5. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0576-7149.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. •• Tyrer P, Mulder R, Kim Y-R, Crawford MJ. The development of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: an amalgam of science, pragmatism, and politics. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095736. Extensive review on the process of the development the dimensional ICD-11 model of personality disorders up to the contemporary version including the derivation of the ICD-11 trait domains and the borderline controversy.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Herpertz SC, Huprich SK, Bohus M, Chanen A, Goodman M, Mehlum L, et al. The challenge of transforming the diagnostic system of personality disorders. J Personal Disord. 2017;31:577–89. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_338.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hopwood CJ, Kotov R, Krueger RF, Watson D, Widiger TA, Althoff RR, et al. The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personal Ment Health. 2018;12:82–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1408.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Hopwood CJ, Krueger RF, Watson D, Widiger TA, Althoff RR, Ansell EB, et al. Commentary on “The challenge of transforming the diagnostic system of personality disorders”. J Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_00.

  24. World Health Organization. Eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases. Report by the Director-General. Executive Board 144th session, Provisional agendy item 5.9. 2018. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB144/B144_22-en.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2019.

  25. Bach B, First MB. Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18:351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1908-3.

  26. Thylstrup B, Simonsen S, Nemery C, Simonsen E, Noll JF, Myatt MW, et al. Assessment of personality-related levels of functioning: a pilot study of clinical assessment of the DSM-5 level of personality functioning based on a semi-structured interview. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16:298. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1011-6.

  27. Huprich SK, Nelson SM, Meehan KB, Siefert CJ, Haggerty G, Sexton J, et al. Introduction of the DSM-5 levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire. Personal Disord. 2018;9:553–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000264.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Siefert CJ, Sexton J, Meehan K, Nelson S, Haggerty G, Dauphin B, et al. Development of a short form for the DSM-5 levels of personality functioning questionnaire. J Pers Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1594842.

  29. Morey LC. Development and initial evaluation of a self-report form of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale. Psychol Assess. 2017;29:1302–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000450.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hutsebaut J, Feenstra DJ, Kamphuis JH. Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a brief self-report questionnaire for the assessment of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale: the LPFS Brief Form (LPFS-BF). Personal Disord. 2016;7:192–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000159.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weekers LC, Hutsebaut J, Kamphuis JH. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: update of a brief instrument for assessing level of personality functioning. Personal Ment Health. 2019;13:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1434.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Goth K, Birkhölzer M, Schmeck K. Assessment of personality functioning in adolescents with the LoPF-Q 12-18 self-report questionnaire. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:680–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1489258.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gamache D, Savard C, Leclerc P, Côté A. Introducing a short self-report for the assessment of DSM-5 level of personality functioning for personality disorders: the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale. Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000335.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hutsebaut J, Kamphuis JH, Feenstra DJ, Weekers LC, de Saeger H. Assessing DSM-5-oriented level of personality functioning: development and psychometric evaluation of the semi-structured interview for personality functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1). Personal Disord. 2017;8:94–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000197.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bender DS, Skodol AE, First MB, Oldham JM. Module I: structured clinical interview for the level of personality functioning scale. In: First MB, Skodol AE, Bender DS, Oldham JM, editors. Structured clinical interview for the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders (SCID-AMPD). Arlington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2018.

  36. Skodol AE, First MB, Bender DS, Oldham JM. Module II: structured clinical interview for personality traits. In: First MB, Skodol AE, Bender DS, Oldham JM, editors. Structured clinical interview for the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders (SCID-AMPD). Arlington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2018.

  37. Olajide K, Munjiza J, Moran P, O’Connell L, Newton-Howes G, Bassett P, et al. Development and psychometric properties of the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD). J Personal Disord. 2018;32:44–56. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_285.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Oltmanns JR, Widiger TA. A self-report measure for the ICD-11 dimensional trait model proposal: the personality inventory for ICD-11. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:154–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000459.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Reichborn-Kjennerud T, Krueger RF, Ystrom E, Torvik FA, Rosenström TH, Aggen SH, et al. Do DSM-5 section II personality disorders and section III personality trait domains reflect the same genetic and environmental risk factors? Psychol Med. 2017;47:2205–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000824.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Morey LC, Bender DS, Skodol AE. Validating the proposed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, severity indicator for personality disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013;201:729–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182a20ea8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Few LR, Miller JD, Rothbaum AO, Meller S, Maples J, Terry DP, et al. Examination of the section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122:1057–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034878.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Dereboy F, Dereboy Ç, Eskin M. Validation of the DSM-5 alternative model personality disorder diagnoses in Turkey, part 1: LEAD validity and reliability of the personality functioning ratings. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:603–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1423989.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zimmermann J, Benecke C, Bender DS, Skodol AE, Schauenburg H, Cierpka M, et al. Assessing DSM-5 level of personality functioning from videotaped clinical interviews: a pilot study with untrained and clinically inexperienced students. J Pers Assess. 2014;96:397–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.852563.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Preti E, Di Pierro R, Costantini G, Benzi IMA, de Panfilis C, Madeddu F. Using the structured interview of personality organization for DSM-5 level of personality functioning rating performed by inexperienced raters. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:621–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1448985.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Roche MJ. Examining the alternative model for personality disorder in daily life: evidence for incremental validity. Personal Disord. 2018;9:574–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000295.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cruitt PJ, Boudreaux MJ, King HR, Oltmanns JR, Oltmanns TF. Examining criterion A: DSM-5 level of personality functioning as assessed through life story interviews. Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000321.

    Google Scholar 

  47. •• Zimmermann J, Böhnke JR, Eschstruth R, Mathews A, Wenzel K, Leising D. The latent structure of personality functioning: investigating criterion A from the alternative model for personality disorders in DSM-5. J Abnorm Psychol. 2015;124:532–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000059. This study investigated the latent structure of DSM-5 AMPD criterion A and B using other-ratings by 515 laypersons and 145 therapists. Results indicated that most criterion A subdomains are unidimensional and that the structure of subdomains is largely consistent with two strongly correlated factors of self- and interpersonal functioning. However, a joint analysis with criterion B trait facets suggested that the distinction between criteria A and B may be somewhat blurry.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Dowgwillo EA, Roche MJ, Pincus AL. Examining the interpersonal nature of criterion A of the DSM-5 section III alternative model for personality disorders using bootstrapped confidence intervals for the interpersonal circumplex. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:581–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1464016.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Roche MJ, Jacobson NC, Pincus AL. Using repeated daily assessments to uncover oscillating patterns and temporally-dynamic triggers in structures of psychopathology: applications to the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2016;125:1090–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000177.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Roche MJ, Jacobson NC, Phillips JJ. Expanding the validity of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale observer report and self-report versions across psychodynamic and interpersonal paradigms. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:571–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1475394.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Morey LC. Application of the DSM-5 level of personality functioning scale by lay raters. J Personal Disord. 2018;32:709–20. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_305.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim Y-R, Blashfield R, Tyrer P, Hwang S-T, Lee H-S. Field trial of a putative research algorithm for diagnosing ICD-11 personality disorders in psychiatric patients: 1. Severity of personality disturbance. Personal Ment Health. 2014;8:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1248.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Watters CA, Sellbom M, Bagby RM. Comparing two domain scoring methods for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000739.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Thimm JC, Jordan S, Bach B. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form (PID-5-SF): psychometric properties and association with Big Five traits and pathological beliefs in a Norwegian population. BMC Psychol. 2016;4:61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0169-5.

  55. Maples JL, Carter NT, Few LR, Crego C, Gore WL, Samuel DB, et al. Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: an item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Assess. 2015;27:1195–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000120.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bach B, Maples-Keller JL, Bo S, Simonsen E. The alternative DSM-5 personality disorder traits criterion: a comparative examination of three self-report forms in a Danish population. Personal Disord. 2016;7:124–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000162.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Díaz-Batanero C, Ramírez-López J, Domínguez-Salas S, Fernández-Calderón F, Lozano ÓM. Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Short Form (PID-5-SF): reliability, factorial structure, and relationship with functional impairment in dual diagnosis patients. Assessment in press. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117739980.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Somma A, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Borroni S, Fossati A. Item response theory analyses, factor structure, and external correlates of the Italian translation of the personality inventory for DSM-5 short form in community-dwelling adults and clinical adults. Assessment in press. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118781006.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Aluja A, García LF, Cuevas L, Lucas I. Dimensional pathological personality predicting personality disorders: comparison of the DAPP-BQ and PID-5 shortened versions in a Spanish community sample. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2019;41:160–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9706-2.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Fossati A, Somma A, Borroni S, Markon KE, Krueger RF. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form: evidence for reliability and construct validity in a sample of community-dwelling Italian adolescents. Assessment. 2017;24:615–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621793.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Anderson JL, Sellbom M, Salekin RT. Utility of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF) in the measurement of maladaptive personality and psychopathology. Assessment. 2018;25:596–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116676889.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Debast I, Rossi G, van Alphen SPJ. Construct validity of the DSM-5 section III maladaptive trait domains in older adults. J Personal Disord. 2017;31:671–88. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_274.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Góngora VC, Castro Solano A. Pathological personality traits (DSM-5), risk factors, and mental health. SAGE Open. 2017;7:215824401772512. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017725129.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kajonius PJ. The short personality inventory for DSM-5 and its conjoined structure with the common five-factor model. Int J Test. 2017;17:372–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1309421.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Porcerelli JH, Hopwood CJ, Jones JR. Convergent and discriminant validity of Personality Inventory for DSM-5-BF in a primary care sample. J Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_372.

  66. Yalch MM, Schroder HS, Dawood S. Validity of a brief measure of DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits in a black college sample. In: Truslow LI, RJ M, editors. Personality disorders: what we know and future directions for research. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2019. p. 107–24.

  67. Markon KE, Quilty LC, Bagby RM, Krueger RF. The development and psychometric properties of an informant-report form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Assessment. 2013;20:370–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486513.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Miller JD, Sleep CE, Lamkin J, Vize C, Campbell WK, Lynam DR. Personality disorder traits: perceptions of likability, impairment, and ability to change as correlates and moderators of desired level. Personal Disord. 2018;9:478–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000263.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Bach B, Sellbom M, Kongerslev M, Simonsen E, Krueger RF, Mulder R. Deriving ICD-11 personality disorder domains from DSM-5 traits: initial attempt to harmonize two diagnostic systems. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2017;136:108–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12748.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Sellbom M, Solomon-Krakus S, Bach B, Bagby RM. Validation of Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) algorithms to assess ICD-11 personality trait domains in a psychiatric sample. Psychol Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000746.

  71. Al-Attiyah AA, Megreya AM, Alrashidi M, Dominguez-Lara SA, Al-Sheerawi A. The psychometric properties of an Arabic version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) across three Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern countries. Int J Cult Ment Health. 2016;10:197–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/17542863.2017.1290125.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Lugo V, de OSES, Hessel CR, Monteiro RT, Pasche NL, Pavan G, et al. Evaluation of DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality traits using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in a Brazilian sample of psychiatric inpatients. Personal Ment Health. 2019;13:24–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1436.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Barchi-Ferreira AM, Loureiro SR, Torres AR, da Silva TDA, Moreno AL, DeSousa DA, et al. Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): cross-cultural adaptation and content validity in the Brazilian context. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2018-0098.

  74. Riegel KD, Ksinan AJ, Samankova D, Preiss M, Harsa P, Krueger RF. Unidimensionality of the personality inventory for DSM-5 facets: evidence from two Czech-speaking samples. Personal Ment Health in press. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1423.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Bastiaens T, Claes L, Smits D, de CB, de FF, Rossi G, et al. The construct validity of the Dutch personality inventory for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (PID-5) in a clinical sample. Assessment. 2016;23:42–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115575069.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Roskam I, Galdiolo S, Hansenne M, Massoudi K, Rossier J, Gicquel L, et al. The psychometric properties of the French version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0133413. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133413.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Zimmermann J, Altenstein D, Krieger T, Grosse Holtforth M, Pretsch J, Alexopoulos J, et al. The structure and correlates of self-reported DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits: findings from two German-speaking samples. J Personal Disord. 2014;28:518–40. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_130.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Fossati A, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Borroni S, Maffei C. Reliability and validity of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): predicting DSM-IV personality disorders and psychopathy in community-dwelling Italian adults. Assessment. 2013;20:689–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113504984.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Thimm JC, Jordan S, Bach B. Hierarchical structure and cross-cultural measurement invariance of the Norwegian version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. J Pers Assess. 2017;99:204–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1223682.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Amini M, Pourshahbaz A, Mohammadkhani P, Khodaie A, Lotfi M. The investigation of construct validity of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-5 personality traits on Iranian sample with antisocial and borderline personality disorders. Int J Prev Med. 2014;5:1601–7.

  81. Lotfi M, Bach B, Amini M, Simonsen E. Structure of DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality domains in Iranian community sample. Personal Ment Health. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1409.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Soraya S, Kamalzadeh L, Nayeri V, Bayat E, Alavi K, Shariat SV. Factor structure of Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in an Iranian sample. IJPCP. 2017;22:308–17. https://doi.org/10.18869/nirp.ijpcp.22.4.308.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Rowiński T, Kowalska-Dąbrowska M, Strus WS, Cieciuch J, Czuma I, Żechowski C, et al. Measurement of pathological personality traits according to section III of the DSM-5: a Polish adaptation of PID-5. Part II—empirical results. Psychiatr Pol. 2019;53:23–48. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/86478.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Pires R, Sousa Ferreira A, Guedes D. The psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Scand J Psychol. 2017;58:468–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12383.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Lozovanu S, Moldovanu I, Vovc V, Ganenco A, Blajevschi A, Besleaga T. Translation and validation of the Russian version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Moldovan Medical Journal. 2019;62:3–6. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3233900.

  86. Gutierrez F, Aluja A, Peri JM, Calvo N, Ferrer M, Bailles E, et al. Psychometric properties of the Spanish PID-5 in a clinical and a community sample. Assessment. 2017;24:326–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115606518.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Liggett J, Carmichael KLC, Smith A, Sellbom M. Validation of self-report impairment measures for section III obsessive-compulsive and avoidant personality disorders. J Pers Assess. 2017;99:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1185613.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. •• Anderson JL, Sellbom M. Evaluating the DSM-5 Section III personality disorder impairment criteria. Personal Disord. 2018;9:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000217. The authors developed disorder-specific impairment scales for six specific PDs as described in the DSM-5 AMPD. The findings suggest a lack of utility in measuring disorder-specific impairment as opposed to a more broadly evaluation of impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Liggett J, Sellbom M. Examining the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders operationalization of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder in a mental health sample. Personal Disord. 2018;9:397–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000285.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Morey LC. Professional manual for the Personality Assessment Inventory. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Busch AJ, Morey LC, Hopwood CJ. Exploring the assessment of the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders with the personality assessment inventory. J Pers Assess. 2017;99:211–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1217872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Ruiz MA, Hopwood CJ, Edens JF, Morey LC, Cox J. Initial development of pathological personality trait domain measures using the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Personal Disord. 2018;9:564–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Wright AGC, Simms LJ. Stability and fluctuation of personality disorder features in daily life. J Abnorm Psychol. 2016;125:641–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Keeley JW, Webb C, Peterson D, Roussin L, Flanagan EH. Development of a response inconsistency scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. J Pers Assess. 2016;98:351–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1158719.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Bagby RM, Sellbom M. The validity and clinical utility of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 response inconsistency scale. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:398–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1420659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Somma A, Borroni S, Kelley SE, Edens JF, Fossati A. Further evidence for the validity of a response inconsistency scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in Italian community-dwelling adolescents, community-dwelling adults, and clinical adults. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:929–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Sellbom M, Dhillon S, Bagby RM. Development and validation of an overreporting scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Psychol Assess. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000507.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Williams MM, Rogers R, Sharf AJ, Ross CA. Faking good: an investigation of social desirability and defensiveness in an inpatient sample with personality disorder traits. J Pers Assess. 2019;101:253–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1455691.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Guenole N, Brown AA, Cooper AJ. Forced-choice assessment of work-related maladaptive personality traits: preliminary evidence from an application of Thurstonian item response modeling. Assessment. 2018;25:513–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116641181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Morey LC, Benson KT, Busch AJ, Skodol AE. Personality Disorders in DSM-5: emerging research on the alternative model. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-015-0558-0.

  101. Krueger RF, Hopwood CJ, Wright AGC, Markon KE. DSM-5 and the path toward empirically based and clinically useful conceptualization of personality and psychopathology. Clin Psychol. 2014;21:245–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. •• Waugh MH, Hopwood CJ, Krueger RF, Morey LC, Pincus AL, Wright AGC. Psychological assessment with the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders: tradition and innovation. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2017;48:79–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000071. In this review, the authors introduce the DSM-5 AMPD to practitioners, highlight its roots in established paradigms of personality assessment, briefly review clinical utility and validity research, and demonstrate application via a case example. They particularly address the clinical use of the AMPD.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Zachar P, First MB. Transitioning to a dimensional model of personality disorder in DSM 5.1 and beyond. Curr Opin Psychiatr. 2015;28:66–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Hopwood CJ, Mulay AL, Waugh MH, editors. The DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders: integrating multiple paradigms of personality assessment. New York: Routledge; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Bastiaens T, Claes L, Greiff S. Dimensional assessment of personality disorders. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2018;34:291–4. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. • Pincus AL. An interpersonal perspective on criterion A of the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders. Curr Opin Psychol. 2018;21:11–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.035. The author illustrates how the impairments in self and interpersonal functioning according to DSM-5 AMPD criterion A align with agency and communion respectively, the “core meta-constructs of interpersonal personality theory”. He underlines the interpersonal nature of personality disorders and how this could be operationalized by linking Criterion A with the interpersonal paradigm.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Herpertz SC, Bertsch K, Jeung H. Neurobiology of criterion A: self and interpersonal personality functioning. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;21:23–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. • Widiger TA, Bach B, Chmielewski M, Clark LA, DeYoung C, Hopwood CJ, et al. Criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP. J Pers Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1465431. The authors briefly introduce the current status of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model as well as the good alignment of DSM-5 AMPD criterion B in their model, followed by an extensive review of research that give indications if and how criterion A could be aligned with their model.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Bender DS, Zimmermann J, Huprich SK. Introduction to the special series on the personality functioning component of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:565–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1491856.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Al-Dajani N, Gralnick TM, Bagby RM. A psychometric review of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): current status and future directions. J Pers Assess. 2016;98:62–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1107572.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Krueger RF, Markon KE. The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:477–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153732.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. • Miller JD, Sleep C, Lynam DR. DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorder: testing the trait perspective captured in criterion B. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;21:50–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.09.012. This paper addresses the associations of DSM-5 AMPD criterion B with the Big Five personality trait model as well as “fears regarding the loss of the important and useful construct” of borderline PD. The authors conclude that there is more than enough empirical evidence for a “full and complete transition” from categorical constructs to a dimensional trait model in the near future.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. • Bach B, Markon K, Simonsen E, Krueger RF. Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders: six cases from practice. J Psychiatr Pract. 2015;21:3–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pra.0000460618.02805.ef. Clear and crisp introduction to the DSM-5 AMPD including descriptions of criterion A impairment and criterion B traits. Applicability of the AMPD is demonstrated by the illustration of six cases taken from clinical practice.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. • Pincus AL, Dowgwillo EA, Greenberg LS. Three cases of narcissistic personality disorder through the lens of the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders. Pract Innov. 2016;1:164–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000025. This paper gives a brief but very good introduction to the DSM-5 AMPD aligned with three cases from community mental health outpatient clinic. The authors include case vignettes, summaries of the course of the treatment and illustrate the utility of the AMPD Narcissistic PD diagnosis in capturing the array of symptoms and functioning that the three different cases show.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Zimmermann J, Benecke C, Bender DS, Skodol AE, Krueger RF, Leising D. Persönlichkeitsdiagnostik im DSM-5. Psychotherapeut. 2013;58:455–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00278-013-1009-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Zimmermann J, Brakemeier E-L, Benecke C. Alternatives DSM-5-Modell zur Klassifikation von Persönlichkeitsstörungen. Psychotherapeut. 2015;60:269–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00278-015-0033-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Schmeck K, Schlüter-Müller S, Foelsch PA, Doering S. The role of identity in the DSM-5 classification of personality disorders. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2013;7:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-7-27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Skodol AE, Morey LC, Bender DS, Oldham JM. The alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders: a clinical application. Am J Psychiatry. 2015;172:606–13. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14101220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Hopwood CJ. A framework for treating DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorder features. Personal Ment Health. 2018;12:107–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Bach B, Bernstein DP. Schema therapy conceptualization of personality functioning and traits in ICD-11 and DSM-5. Curr Opin Psychiatr. 2019;32:38–49. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Morey LC, Skodol AE, Oldham JM. Clinician judgments of clinical utility: a comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123:398–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Nelson SM, Huprich SK, Shankar S, Sohnleitner A, Paggeot AV. A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of trainee opinions of four methods of personality disorder diagnosis. Personal Disord. 2017;8:217–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Lengel GJ, Mullins-Sweatt SN. The importance and acceptability of general and maladaptive personality trait computerized assessment feedback. Psychol Assess. 2017;29:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Tyrer P, Crawford M, Sanatinia R, Tyrer H, Cooper S, Muller-Pollard C, et al. Preliminary studies of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorder in practice. Personal Ment Health. 2014;8:254–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Mulder RT, Horwood J, Tyrer P, Carter J, Joyce PR. Validating the proposed ICD-11 domains. Personal Ment Health. 2016;10:84–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Kim Y-R, Tyrer P, Lee H-S, Kim S-G, Connan F, Kinnaird E, et al. Schedule for personality assessment from notes and documents (SPAN-DOC): preliminary validation, links to the ICD-11 classification of personality disorder, and use in eating disorders. Personal Ment Health. 2016;10:106–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Kim Y-R, Tyrer P, Lee H-S, Kim S-G, Hwang S-T, Lee GY, et al. Preliminary field trial of a putative research algorithm for diagnosing ICD-11 personality disorders in psychiatric patients: 2. Proposed trait domains. Personal Ment Health. 2015;9:298–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Bach B, Anderson JL. Patient-reported ICD-11 personality disorder severity and DSM-5 level of personality functioning. J Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_393.

  129. Oltmanns JR, Widiger TA. Evaluating the assessment of the ICD-11 personality disorder diagnostic system. Psychol Assess. 2019;31:674–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Hansen SJ, Christensen S, Kongerslev MT, First MB, Widiger TA, Simonsen E, et al. Mental health professionals’ perceived clinical utility of the ICD-10 vs. ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. Personal Ment Health. 2019;13:84–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Morey LC. Interdiagnostician reliability of the DSM-5 section II and section III alternative model criteria for borderline personality disorder. J Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_362.

  132. Garcia DJ, Skadberg RM, Schmidt M, Bierma S, Shorter RL, Waugh MH. It’s not that difficult: an interrater reliability study of the DSM-5 section III alternative model for personality disorders. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:612–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1428982.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Kampe L, Zimmermann J, Bender D, Caligor E, Borowski A-L, Ehrenthal JC, et al. Comparison of the structured DSM-5 clinical interview for the level of personality functioning scale with the structured interview of personality organization. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:642–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1489257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Buer Christensen T, Paap MCS, Arnesen M, Koritzinsky K, Nysaeter T-E, Eikenaes I, et al. Interrater reliability of the structured clinical interview for the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders module I: level of personality functioning scale. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:630–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1483377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Bach B, Hutsebaut J. Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: utility in capturing personality problems in psychiatric outpatients and incarcerated addicts. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:660–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1428984.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. •• Hopwood CJ, Good EW, Morey LC. Validity of the DSM-5 levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:650–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1420660. Study in a large sample on the validity of DSM-5 AMPD criterion A and B as well as their associations with DSM-IV PDs, interpersonal behaviour, and general personality traits. Findings suggest a general factor for criterion A as well as differential associations of criterion B traits with a range of constructs.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Sleep CE, Lynam D, Widiger TA, Crowe ML, Miller J. An evaluation of DSM-5 section III personality disorder criterion A (impairment) in accounting for psychopathology. Psychol Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z48tv.

  138. Nelson SM, Huprich SK, Meehan KB, Siefert C, Haggerty G, Sexton J, et al. Convergent and discriminant validity and utility of the DSM-5 levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire (DLOPFQ): associations with medical health care provider ratings and measures of physical health. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:671–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1492415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Busmann M, Wrege J, Meyer AH, Ritzler F, Schmidlin M, Lang UE, et al. Alternative model of personality disorders (DSM-5) predicts dropout in inpatient psychotherapy for patients with personality disorder. Front Psychol. 2019;10:735. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Somma A, Borroni S, Maffei C, Giarolli LE, Markon KE, Krueger RF, et al. Reliability, factor structure, and associations with measures of problem relationship and behavior of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in a sample of Italian community-dwelling adolescents. J Personal Disord. 2017;31:624–46. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Watters CA, Bagby RM. A meta-analysis of the five-factor internal structure of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:1255–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Somma A, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Fossati A. The replicability of the personality inventory for DSM-5 domain scale factor structure in U.S. and non-U.S. samples: a quantitative review of the published literature. Psychol Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000711.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Wright AGC, Thomas KM, Hopwood CJ, Markon KE, Pincus AL, Krueger RF. The hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological personality traits. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012;121:951–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027669.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. De Fruyt F, De Clercq B, de Bolle M, Wille B, Markon KE, Krueger RF. General and maladaptive traits in a five-factor framework for DSM-5 in a university student sample. Assessment. 2013;20:295–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113475808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. van den Broeck J, Bastiaansen L, Rossi G, Dierckx E, De Clercq B, Hofmans J. Hierarchical structure of maladaptive personality traits in older adults: joint factor analysis of the PID-5 and the DAPP-BQ. J Personal Disord. 2014;28:198–211. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Bo S, Bach B, Mortensen EL, Simonsen E. Reliability and hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological traits in a Danish mixed sample. J Personal Disord. 2016;30:112–29. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. De Clercq B, De Fruyt F, de Bolle M, van Hiel A, Markon KE, Krueger RF. The hierarchical structure and construct validity of the PID-5 trait measure in adolescence. J Pers. 2014;82:158–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Morey LC, Krueger RF, Skodol AE. The hierarchical structure of clinician ratings of proposed DSM-5 pathological personality traits. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122:836–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. de Caluwé E, Verbeke L, van Aken M, van der Heijden PT, de Clercq B. The DSM-5 trait measure in a psychiatric sample of late adolescents and emerging adults: structure, reliability, and validity. J Personal Disord. 2019;33:101–18. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Lim DSH, Gwee AJ, Hong RY. Associations between the DSM-5 section III trait model and impairments in functioning in Singaporean college students. J Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_353.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Bastiaens T, Smits D, de HM, Vanwalleghem D, Claes L. DSM-5 section III personality traits and section II personality disorders in a Flemish community sample. Psychiatry Res. 2016;238:290–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.02.056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Watters CA, Sellbom M, Uliaszek AA, Bagby RM. Clarifying the interstitial nature of facets from the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 using the five factor model of personality. Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000327.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Jopp AM, South SC. Investigating the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 using self and spouse reports. J Personal Disord. 2015;29:193–214. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Ashton MC, de Vries RE, Lee K. Trait variance and response style variance in the scales of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). J Pers Assess. 2017;99:192–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1208210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Quilty LC, Cosentino N, Bagby RM. Response bias and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5: contrasting self- and informant-report. Personal Disord. 2018;9:346–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Bottesi G, Ghisi M, Martignon A, Sica C. Self-other agreement in DSM-5 section III dimensional personality traits: a study on Italian community individuals. Pers Individ Dif 2018;130:135–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Samuel DB, Suzuki T, Bucher MA, Griffin SA. The agreement between clients’ and their therapists’ ratings of personality disorder traits. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018;86:546–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Sleep CE, Lamkin J, Lynam DR, Campbell WK, Miller JD. Personality disorder traits: testing insight regarding presence of traits, impairment, and desire for change. Personal Disord. 2019;10:123–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Oltmanns JR, Oltmanns T. Self–other agreement on ratings of personality disorder symptoms and traits: three meta-analyses. In: Letzring TD, Spain JS, editors. The handbook of accurate personality judgment: theory and empirical findings. New York: Oxford University Press; in press. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mka3j.

  160. Livesley JW, Jackson DN. Manual for the dimensional assessment of personality pathology-basic questionnaire. Port Huron: Sigma Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Simms LJ, Goldberg LR, Roberts JE, Watson D, Welte J, Rotterman JH. Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: introducing the CAT–PD project. J Pers Assess. 2011;93:380–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.577475.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Crego C, Widiger TA. Convergent and discriminant validity of alternative measures of maladaptive personality traits. Psychol Assess. 2016;28:1561–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Yalch MM, Hopwood CJ. Convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity of DSM-5 traits. Personal Disord. 2016;7:394–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Anderson JL, Sellbom M, Bagby RM, Quilty LC, Veltri COC, Markon KE, et al. On the convergence between PSY-5 domains and PID-5 domains and facets: implications for assessment of DSM-5 personality traits. Assessment. 2013;20:286–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112471141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Watson D, Stasik SM, Ro E, Clark LA. Integrating normal and pathological personality: relating the DSM-5 trait-dimensional model to general traits of personality. Assessment. 2013;20:312–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113485810.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Crego C, Oltmanns JR, Widiger TA. FFMPD scales: comparisons with the FFM, PID-5, and CAT-PD-SF. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000495.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Helle AC, Mullins-Sweatt SN. Maladaptive personality trait models: validating the five-factor model maladaptive trait measures with the personality inventory for DSM-5 and NEO personality inventory. Assessment. 2019;26:375–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117709071.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Wright AGC, Simms LJ. On the structure of personality disorder traits: conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personal Disord. 2014;5:43–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000037.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  169. Gutiérrez F, Ruiz J, Peri JM, Gárriz M, Vall G, Cavero M. Toward an integrated model of pathological personality traits: common hierarchical structure of the PID-5 and the DAPP-BQ. J Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_431.

  170. Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form: manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Anderson JL, Sellbom M, Ayearst L, Quilty LC, Chmielewski M, Bagby RM. Associations between DSM-5 section III personality traits and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scales in a psychiatric patient sample. Psychol Assess. 2015;27:801–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000096.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Hopwood CJ, Wright AGC, Krueger RF, Schade N, Markon KE, Morey LC. DSM-5 pathological personality traits and the Personality Assessment Inventory. Assessment. 2013;20:269–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Sleep CE, Hyatt CS, Lamkin J, Maples-Keller JL, Miller JD. Examining the relations among the DSM-5 alternative model of personality, the five-factor model, and externalizing and internalizing behavior. Personal Disord. 2018;9:379–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Helle AC, Trull TJ, Widiger TA, Mullins-Sweatt SN. Utilizing interview and self-report assessment of the five-factor model to examine convergence with the alternative model for personality disorders. Personal Disord. 2017;8:247–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Ashton MC, Lee K, de Vries RE, Hendrickse J, Born MP. The maladaptive personality traits of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in relation to the HEXACO personality factors and schizotypy/dissociation. J Personal Disord. 2012;26:641–59. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.5.641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Gore WL, Widiger TA. The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five-factor models of general personality. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122:816–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Quilty LC, Ayearst LE, Chmielewski M, Pollock BG, Bagby RM. The psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA DSM-5 field trial sample. Assessment. 2013;20:362–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Thomas KM, Yalch MM, Krueger RF, Wright AGC, Markon KE, Hopwood CJ. The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment. 2013;20:308–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112457589.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Griffin SA, Samuel DB. A closer look at the lower-order structure of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5: comparison with the five-factor model. Personal Disord. 2014;5:406–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Suzuki T, Samuel DB, Pahlen S, Krueger RF. DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: an item-response theory analysis. J Abnorm Psychol. 2015;124:343–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  181. DeYoung CG, Carey BE, Krueger RF, Ross SR. Ten aspects of the Big Five in the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Personal Disord. 2016;7:113–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000170.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. Pocnet C, Antonietti J-P, Handschin P, Massoudi K, Rossier J. The many faces of personality: the DSM-5 dimensional and categorical models and the five-factor model. Pers Individ Dif 2018;121:11–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Crego C, Widiger TA. The conceptualization and assessment of schizotypal traits: a comparison of the FFSI and PID-5. J Personal Disord. 2017;31:606–23. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Widiger TA, Crego C. HiTOP thought disorder, DSM-5 psychoticism, and five factor model openness. J Res Pers. 2019;80:72–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.04.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. Suzuki T, Griffin SA, Samuel DB. Capturing the DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits in the five-factor model’s nomological net. J Pers. 2017;85:220–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. • Bach B, Sellbom M, Skjernov M, Simonsen E. ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality trait domains capture categorical personality disorders: finding a common ground. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2018;52:425–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867417727867. Comparison of the DSM-5 AMPD criterion B with the PD trait model proposed for ICD-11 in a sample of psychiatric outpatients that were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV PDs. A preliminary category-to-domain “cross-walk” is provided.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Yam WH, Simms LJ. Comparing criterion- and trait-based personality disorder diagnoses in DSM-5. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123:802–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037633.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Rojas SL, Widiger TA. Coverage of the DSM-IV-TR/DSM-5 section II personality disorders with the DSM-5 dimensional trait model. J Personal Disord. 2017;31:462–82. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Morey LC, Benson KT, Skodol AE. Relating DSM-5 section III personality traits to section II personality disorder diagnoses. Psychol Med. 2016;46:647–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715002226.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Bach B, Anderson J, Simonsen E. Continuity between interview-rated personality disorders and self-reported DSM-5 traits in a Danish psychiatric sample. Personal Disord. 2017;8:261–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Anderson J, Snider S, Sellbom M, Krueger R, Hopwood C. A comparison of the DSM-5 section II and section III personality disorder structures. Psychiatry Res. 2014;216:363–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Miller JD, Few LR, Lynam DR, MacKillop J. Pathological personality traits can capture DSM-IV personality disorder types. Personal Disord. 2015;6:32–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000064.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Hopwood CJ, Thomas KM, Markon KE, Wright AGC, Krueger RF. DSM-5 personality traits and DSM–IV personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012;121:424–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026656.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Samuel DB, Hopwood CJ, Krueger RF, Thomas KM, Ruggero CJ. Comparing methods for scoring personality disorder types using maladaptive traits in DSM-5. Assessment. 2013;20:353–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  195. Strickland CM, Hopwood CJ, Bornovalova MA, Rojas EC, Krueger RF, Patrick CJ. Categorical and dimensional conceptions of personality pathology in DSM-5: toward a model-based synthesis. J Personal Disord. 2019;33:185–213. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Orbons IMJ, Rossi G, Verheul R, Schoutrop MJA, Derksen JLL, Segal DL, et al. Continuity between DSM-5 section II and III personality disorders in a Dutch clinical sample. J Pers Assess. 2019;101:274–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1467427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. McClintock AS, McCarrick SM. An examination of dependent personality disorder in the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2017;39:635–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-017-9621-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Evans CM, Simms LJ. Assessing inter-model continuity between the section II and section III conceptualizations of borderline personality disorder in DSM-5. Personal Disord. 2018;9:290–6. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Bach B, Sellbom M, Bo S, Simonsen E. Utility of DSM-5 section III personality traits in differentiating borderline personality disorder from comparison groups. Eur Psychiatry. 2016;37:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.04.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  200. Calvo N, Valero S, Sáez-Francàs N, Gutiérrez F, Casas M, Ferrer M. Borderline personality disorder and Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): dimensional personality assessment with DSM-5. Compr Psychiatry. 2016;70:105–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Bach B, Sellbom M. Continuity between DSM-5 categorical criteria and traits criteria for borderline personality disorder. Can J Psychiatr. 2016;61:489–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743716640756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  202. Sellbom M, Sansone RA, Songer DA, Anderson JL. Convergence between DSM-5 section II and section III diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014;48:325–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867413511997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. Fowler JC, Madan A, Allen JG, Patriquin M, Sharp C, Oldham JM, et al. Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model for borderline personality disorder: differential diagnostic accuracy of the BFI, SCID-II-PQ, and PID-5. Compr Psychiatry. 2018;80:97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  204. Anderson JL, Sellbom M, Shealy RC. Clinician perspectives of antisocial and borderline personality disorders using DSM-5 section III dimensional personality traits. J Personal Disord. 2018;32:262–76. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  205. Yalch MM, Schroder HS, Dawood S, Donnellan MB. Relative effects of maladaptive traits and anxiety mindset on borderline personality disorder symptoms. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2017;36:285–99. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2017.36.4.285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  206. Bortolla R, Cavicchioli M, Galli M, Verschure PFMJ, Maffei C. A comprehensive evaluation of emotional responsiveness in borderline personality disorder: a support for hypersensitivity hypothesis. Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul. 2019;6:495. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-019-0105-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  207. Liggett J, Sellbom M, Carmichael KLC. Examining the DSM-5 section III criteria for obsessive-compulsive personality disorder in a community sample. J Personal Disord. 2017;31:790–809. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  208. Liggett J, Sellbom M, Bach B. Continuity between DSM-5 section II and section III personality traits for obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2018;25:144–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  209. Wygant DB, Sellbom M, Sleep CE, Wall TD, Applegate KC, Krueger RF, et al. Examining the DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model operationalization of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in a male correctional sample. Personal Disord. 2016;7:229–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. Miller JD, Lamkin J, Maples-Keller JL, Sleep CE, Lynam DR. A test of the empirical profile and coherence of the DSM-5 psychopathy specifier. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:870–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  211. Fossati A, Somma A, Borroni S, Pincus AL, Markon KE, Krueger RF. Profiling pathological narcissism according to DSM-5 domains and traits: a study on consecutively admitted Italian psychotherapy patients. Psychol Assess. 2017;29:1400–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  212. Miller JD, Gentile B, Wilson L, Campbell WK. Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the DSM-5 pathological personality trait model. J Pers Assess. 2013;95:284–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.685907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  213. Wright AGC, Pincus AL, Thomas KM, Hopwood CJ, Markon KE, Krueger RF. Conceptions of narcissism and the DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Assessment. 2013;20:339–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  214. Sellbom M, Carmichael KLC, Liggett J. Examination of DSM-5 section III avoidant personality disorder in a community sample. Personal Ment Health. 2017;11:299–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. Somma A, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Borroni S, Fossati A. Schizotypy from the perspective of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality traits: a study on a sample of 1056 Italian adult university students. J Psychopathol Behav Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-019-09718-1.

  216. Watters CA, Bagby RM, Sellbom M. Meta-analysis to derive an empirically based set of personality facet criteria for the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. Personal Disord. 2019;10:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  217. Suzuki T, South SC, Samuel DB, Wright AGC, Yalch MM, Hopwood CJ, et al. Measurement invariance of the DSM-5 section III pathological personality trait model across sex. Personal Disord. 2019;10:114–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  218. Veith AC, Russell TD, King AR. PID-5 trait mediation of childhood maltreatment effects. Pers Individ Dif 2017;104:58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  219. Zimmermann J, Masuhr O, Jaeger U, Leising D, Benecke C, Spitzer C. Maladaptive Persönlichkeitseigenschaften gemäß DSM-5: Zusammenhänge mit psychischer Belastung und ICD-10 Diagnosen in einer klinischen Stichprobe. Persönlichkeitsstörungen: Theorie und Therapie. 2014;18:46–58.

    Google Scholar 

  220. Benzi IMA, Preti E, Di Pierro R, Clarkin JF, Madeddu F. Maladaptive personality traits and psychological distress in adolescence: the moderating role of personality functioning. Pers Individ Dif. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.026.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Bastiaens T, Smits D, de HM, Thys E, Bryon H, Sweers K, et al. The relationship between the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) and the psychotic disorder in a clinical sample. Assessment. 2019;26:315–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117693922.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  222. Drvaric L, Bagby RM, Kiang M, Mizrahi R. Maladaptive personality traits in patients identified at lower-risk and higher-risk for psychosis. Psychiatry Res. 2018;268:348–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  223. Schimmenti A, Musetti A, Costanzo A, Terrone G, Maganuco NR, Aglieri Rinella C, et al. The unfabulous four: maladaptive personality functioning, insecure attachment, dissociative experiences, and problematic internet use among young adults. Int J Ment Heal Addict in press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00079-0.

  224. Fowler JC, Madan A, Allen JG, Oldham JM, Frueh BC. Differentiating bipolar disorder from borderline personality disorder: diagnostic accuracy of the difficulty in emotion regulation scale and personality inventory for DSM-5. J Affect Disord. 2019;245:856–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  225. Smith TE, Samuel DB. A multi-method examination of the links between ADHD and personality disorder. J Personal Disord. 2017;31:26–48. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  226. • Creswell KG, Bachrach RL, Wright AGC, Pinto A, Ansell E. Predicting problematic alcohol use with the DSM-5 alternative model of personality pathology. Personal Disord. 2016;7:103–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000131. A large study investigating associations of DSM-5 AMPD criterion B with alcohol abuse. Criterion B traits disinhibition and antagonism show a clear association. Additionally there seems to be an interaction effect moderated by age.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  227. Moraleda-Barreno E, Díaz-Batanero C, Pérez-Moreno PJ, Gómez-Bujedo J, Lozano OM. Relations between facets and personality domains with impulsivity: new evidence using the DSM-5 section III framework in patients with substance use disorders. Personal Disord. 2018;9:490–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  228. Seyed Hashemi SG, Merghati Khoei E, Hosseinnezhad S, Mousavi M, Dadashzadeh S, Mostafaloo T, et al. Personality traits and substance use disorders: comparative study with drug user and non-drug user population. Pers Individ Dif 2019;148:50–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  229. Evans CM, Simms LJ. The latent structure of self-harm. J Abnorm Psychol. 2019;128:12–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  230. Carlotta D, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Borroni S, Frera F, Somma A, et al. Adaptive and maladaptive personality traits in high-risk gamblers. J Personal Disord. 2015;29:378–92. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  231. Laier C, Wegmann E, Brand M. Personality and cognition in gamers: avoidance expectancies mediate the relationship between maladaptive personality traits and symptoms of internet-gaming disorder. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:1058. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  232. James LM, Anders SL, Peterson CK, Engdahl BE, Krueger RF, Georgopoulos AP. DSM-5 personality traits discriminate between posttraumatic stress disorder and control groups. Exp Brain Res. 2015;233:2021–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4273-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  233. • Waszczuk MA, Li K, Ruggero CJ, Clouston SAP, Luft BJ, Kotov R. Maladaptive personality traits and 10-year course of psychiatric and medical symptoms and functional impairment following trauma. Ann Behav Med. 2018;362(13). https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kax030. Extensive statistical analysis on the associations of DSM-5 AMPD criterion B traits and facets with the initial severity and course of posttraumatic stress disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, lower respiratory symptoms as well as mental and physical functioning impairments in a sample of World Trade Center respondents. Though the AMPD criterion B was assessed at the end of the 10-year course, substantial associations were found.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  234. Keeley JW, Flanagan EH, McCluskey DL. Functional impairment and the DSM-5 dimensional system for personality disorder. J Personal Disord. 2014;28:657–74. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  235. Chmielewski M, Ruggero CJ, Kotov R, Liu K, Krueger RF. Comparing the dependability and associations with functioning of the DSM-5 section III trait model of personality pathology and the DSM-5 section II personality disorder model. Personal Disord. 2017;8:228–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  236. Boland JK, Damnjanovic T, Anderson JL. Evaluating the role of functional impairment in personality psychopathology. Psychiatry Res. 2018;270:1017–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.03.049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  237. Bach B, Lee C, Mortensen EL, Simonsen E. How do DSM-5 personality traits align with schema therapy constructs? J Personal Disord. 2016;30:502–29. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  238. Williams TF, Simms LJ. Personality disorder models and their coverage of interpersonal problems. Personal Disord. 2016;7:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  239. Wright AGC, Pincus AL, Hopwood CJ, Thomas KM, Markon KE, Krueger RF. An interpersonal analysis of pathological personality traits in DSM-5. Assessment. 2012;19:263–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112446657.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  240. Hopwood CJ, Schade N, Krueger RF, Wright AGC, Markon KE. Connecting DSM-5 personality traits and pathological beliefs: toward a unifying model. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2013;35:162–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-012-9332-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  241. Granieri A, La Marca L, Mannino G, Giunta S, Guglielmucci F, Schimmenti A. The relationship between defense patterns and DSM-5 maladaptive personality domains. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1926. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01926.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  242. Abdi R, Pak R. The mediating role of emotion dysregulation as a transdiagnostic factor in the relationship between pathological personality dimensions and emotional disorders symptoms severity. Pers Individ Dif 2019;142:282–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  243. Dunne AL, Gilbert F, Daffern M. Investigating the relationship between DSM-5 personality disorder domains and facets and aggression in an offender population using the personality inventory for the DSM-5. J Personal Disord. 2018;32:668–93. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  244. Somma A, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Alajmo VBM, Arlotta E, Beretta S, et al. DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorder dysfunctional personality traits as predictors of self-reported aggression in an Italian sample of consecutively admitted, personality-disordered psychotherapy patients. J Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_430.

  245. Dowgwillo EA, Ménard KS, Krueger RF, Pincus AL. DSM-5 pathological personality traits and intimate partner violence among male and female college students. Violence Vict. 2016;31:416–37. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  246. Pace U, D’Urso G, Zappulla C. Hating among adolescents: common contributions of cognitive distortions and maladaptive personality traits. Curr Psychol in press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00278-x.

  247. Russell TD, King AR. Distrustful, conventional, entitled, and dysregulated: PID-5 personality facets predict hostile masculinity and sexual violence in community men. J Interpers Violence in press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517689887.

  248. Norton-Baker M, Russell TD, King AR. “He seemed so normal”: single tactic perpetrators of sexual violence are similar to non-violent men using the DSM-5’s hybrid personality disorder model. Pers Individ Dif 2018;123:241–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  249. Russell TD, Doan CM, King AR. Sexually violent women: the PID-5, everyday sadism, and adversarial sexual attitudes predict female sexual aggression and coercion against male victims. Pers Individ Dif 2017;111:242–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  250. Russell TD, King AR. Mean girls: PID-5 personality traits and everyday sadism predict hostile femininity. Personal Individ Differ. 2017;104:252–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  251. Mitchell VE, Mogilski JK, Zeigler-Hill V, Welling LLM. Mate poaching strategies are differentially associated with pathological personality traits and risk-taking in men and women. Personal Individ Differ. 2019;142:110–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  252. Russell TD, Pocknell V, King AR. Lesbians and bisexual women and men have higher scores on the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) than heterosexual counterparts. Personal Individ Differ. 2017;110:119–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  253. Strickland CM, Drislane LE, Lucy M, Krueger RF, Patrick CJ. Characterizing psychopathy using DSM-5 personality traits. Assessment. 2013;20:327–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486691.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  254. Sleep CE, Lynam DR, Hyatt CS, Miller JD. Perils of partialing redux: the case of the dark triad. J Abnorm Psychol. 2017;126:939–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  255. Grigoras M, Wille B. Shedding light on the dark side: associations between the dark triad and the DSM-5 maladaptive trait model. Pers Individ Dif 2017;104:516–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  256. Wissing BG, Reinhard M-A. The dark triad and the PID-5 maladaptive personality traits: accuracy, confidence and response bias in judgments of veracity. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01549.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  257. Zeigler-Hill V, Noser AE. Characterizing spitefulness in terms of the DSM-5 model of pathological personality traits. Curr Psychol. 2018;37:14–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9484-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  258. Zeigler-Hill V, Mandracchia JT, Dahlen ER, Shango R, Vrabel JK. Pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles. Pers Individ Dif 2017;110:41–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  259. Zeigler-Hill V, Besser A, Cronin S, Vrabel JK. Pathological personality traits and utilitarian moral judgments. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2018;37:182–200. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2018.37.3.182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  260. Swami V, Weis L, Lay A, Barron D, Furnham A. Associations between belief in conspiracy theories and the maladaptive personality traits of the personality inventory for DSM-5. Psychiatry Res. 2016;236:86–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.12.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  261. Bastiaens T, Claes L, Smits D, Vanwalleghem D, de Hert M. Self-reported cognitive biases are equally present in patients diagnosed with psychotic versus nonpsychotic disorders. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2018;206:122–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  262. Zeigler-Hill V, McCabe GA, Vrabel JK. The dark side of humor: DSM-5 pathological personality traits and humor styles. Eur J Psychol. 2016;12:363–76. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i3.1109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  263. Perchtold CM, Weiss EM, Rominger C, Feyaerts K, Ruch W, Fink A, et al. Humorous cognitive reappraisal: more benign humour and less “dark” humour is affiliated with more adaptive cognitive reappraisal strategies. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0211618. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211618.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  264. Schimmenti A, Sideli L, La Marca L, Gori A, Terrone G. Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (MDS-16) in an Italian sample. J Pers Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1594240.

  265. Fossati A, Somma A, Borroni S, Markon KE, Krueger RF. Executive functioning correlates of DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits: initial evidence from an Italian sample of consecutively admitted adult outpatients. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2018;40:484–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9645-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  266. James LM, Engdahl BE, Leuthold AC, Krueger RF, Georgopoulos AP. Pathological personality traits modulate neural interactions. Exp Brain Res. 2015;233:3543–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4406-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  267. da Costa HP, Vrabel JK, Zeigler-Hill V, Vonk J. DSM-5 pathological personality traits are associated with the ability to understand the emotional states of others. J Res Pers. 2018;75:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  268. Papousek I, Aydin N, Rominger C, Feyaerts K, Schmid-Zalaudek K, Lackner HK, et al. DSM-5 personality trait domains and withdrawal versus approach motivational tendencies in response to the perception of other people’s desperation and angry aggression. Biol Psychol. 2018;132:106–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.11.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  269. Ackerman RA, Corretti CA. Pathological personality traits and intimacy processes within roommate relationships. Eur J Personal. 2015;29:152–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  270. Decuyper M, Gistelinck F, Vergauwe J, Pancorbo G, de Fruyt F. Personality pathology and relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Personal Disord. 2018;9:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  271. Wilson S, Elkins IJ, Bair JL, Oleynick VC, Malone SM, McGue M, et al. Maladaptive personality traits and romantic relationship satisfaction: a monozygotic co-twin control analysis. J Abnorm Psychol. 2018;127:339–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000343.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  272. • Fossati A, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Borroni S, Maffei C, Somma A. The DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders from the perspective of adult attachment: a study in community-dwelling adults. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2015;203:252–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000274. In a large representative sample, adult attachment quality was significantly associated with all five DSM-5 AMPD criterion B traits. Highest associations were found for the trait domains negative affectivity and detachment, and for the trait facets anhedonia, depressivity, anxiousness, and withdrawal.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  273. Rosa-Mendes M, Pires R, Ferreira AS. Personality traits of the alternative DSM-5 model and the attachment dimensions in Portuguese adults. Pers Individ Dif 2019;143:21–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  274. Zeigler-Hill V, Hobbs KA. The darker aspects of motivation: pathological personality traits and the fundamental social motives. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2017;36:87–107. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2017.36.2.87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  275. Zimmermann J, Woods WC, Ritter S, Happel M, Masuhr O, Jaeger U, et al. Integrating structure and dynamics in personality assessment: first steps toward the development and validation of a personality dynamics diary. Psychol Assess. 2019;31:516–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000625.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  276. Williams MM, Rogers R. Stigma experiences of patients with problematic personality traits: an investigation with the PID-5. Stigma Health in press. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000153.

  277. Jonason PK, Zeigler-Hill V, Baldacchino J. Before and after: personality pathology, childhood conditions, and life history outcomes. Pers Individ Dif 2017;116:38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  278. Morey LC, Benson KT. Relating DSM-5 section II and section III personality disorder diagnostic classification systems to treatment planning. Compr Psychiatry. 2016;68:48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.03.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  279. Fossati A, Somma A, Borroni S, Maffei C, Markon KE, Krueger RF. A head-to-head comparison of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) with the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4) in predicting the general level of personality pathology among community dwelling subjects. J Personal Disord. 2016;30:82–94.

    Google Scholar 

  280. Fossati A, Somma A, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Borroni S. On the relationships between DSM-5 dysfunctional personality traits and social cognition deficits: a study in a sample of consecutively admitted Italian psychotherapy patients. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2017;24:1421–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  281. Anderson JL, Sellbom M, Wygant DB, Salekin RT, Krueger RF. Examining the associations between DSM-5 section III antisocial personality disorder traits and psychopathy in community and university samples. J Personal Disord. 2014;28:675–97. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  282. Anderson JL, Sellbom M, Sansone RA, Songer DA. Comparing external correlates of DSM-5 section II and section III dimensional trait operationalizations of borderline personality disorder. J Personal Disord. 2016;30:193–210. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  283. Simms LJ, Calabrese WR. Incremental validity of the DSM-5 section III personality disorder traits with respect to psychosocial impairment. J Personal Disord. 2016;30:95–111. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  284. Fowler JC, Patriquin MA, Madan A, Allen JG, Frueh BC, Oldham JM. Incremental validity of the PID-5 in relation to the five factor model and traditional polythetic personality criteria of the DSM-5. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1526.

    Google Scholar 

  285. Zimmermann J, Mayer A, Leising D, Krieger T, Grosse Holtforth M, Pretsch J. Exploring occasion specificity in the assessment of DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2017;33:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  286. Wright AGC, Calabrese WR, Rudick MM, Yam WH, Zelazny K, Williams TF, et al. Stability of the DSM-5 section III pathological personality traits and their longitudinal associations with psychosocial functioning in personality disordered individuals. J Abnorm Psychol. 2015;124:199–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  287. van den Broeck J, Bastiaansen L, Rossi G, Dierckx E, de Clercq B. Age-neutrality of the trait facets proposed for personality disorders in DSM-5: a DIFAS analysis of the PID-5. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2013;35:487–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9364-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  288. Debast I, Rossi G, van Alphen SPJ. Age-neutrality of a brief assessment of the section III alternative model for personality disorders in older adults. Assessment. 2018;25:310–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118754706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  289. South SC, Krueger RF, Knudsen GP, Ystrom E, Czajkowski N, Aggen SH, et al. A population based twin study of DSM-5 maladaptive personality domains. Personal Disord. 2017;8:366–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  290. Bach B, Sellbom M, Simonsen E. Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in clinical versus nonclinical individuals: generalizability of psychometric features. Assessment. 2018;25:815–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117709070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  291. McGee Ng SA, Bagby RM, Goodwin BE, Burchett D, Sellbom M, Ayearst LE, et al. The effect of response bias on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). J Pers Assess. 2016;98:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1096791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  292. Dhillon S, Bagby RM, Kushner SC, Burchett D. The impact of underreporting and overreporting on the validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): a simulation analog design investigation. Psychol Assess. 2017;29:473–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  293. Kendler KS, Aggen SH, Gillespie N, Neale MC, Knudsen GP, Krueger RF, et al. The genetic and environmental sources of resemblance between normative personality and personality disorder traits. J Personal Disord. 2017;31:193–207. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_251.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  294. Wright ZE, Pahlen S, Krueger RF. Genetic and environmental influences on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth edition (DSM-5) maladaptive personality traits and their connections with normative personality traits. J Abnorm Psychol. 2017;126:416–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000260.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  295. Katz AC, Hee D, Hooker CI, Shankman SA. A family study of the DSM-5 section III personality pathology model using the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5). J Personal Disord. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_323.

    Google Scholar 

  296. Lamkin J, Maples-Keller JL, Miller JD. How likable are personality disorder and general personality traits to those who possess them? J Pers. 2018;86:173–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  297. Hart W, Tortoriello GK, Richardson K. Are personality disorder traits ego-syntonic or ego-dystonic? Revisiting the issue by considering functionality in press. J Res Pers. 2018;76:124–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  298. Hart W, Tortoriello GK. The experience of benefit and impairment of personality disorder traits and personality disorder trait attitudes. Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000339.

    Google Scholar 

  299. Meehan KB, Siefert C, Sexton J, Huprich SK. Expanding the role of levels of personality functioning in personality disorder taxonomy: commentary on “Criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP”. J Pers Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1551228.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  300. Bornstein RF. From structure to process: on the integration of AMPD and HiTOP. J Pers Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1501696.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  301. Bender DS. The P-factor and what it means to be human: commentary on criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP. J Pers Assess in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1492928.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  302. Leising D, Scherbaum S, Packmohr P, Zimmermann J. Substance and evaluation in personality disorder diagnoses. J Personal Disord. 2018;32:766–83. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  303. Mulay AL, Cain NM, Waugh MH, Hopwood CJ, Adler JM, Garcia DJ, et al. Personality constructs and paradigms in the alternative DSM-5 model of personality disorder. J Pers Assess. 2018;100:593–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1477787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  304. Fossati A, Borroni S, Somma A, Markon KE, Krueger RF. Testing relationships between DSM-5 section III maladaptive traits and measures of self and interpersonal impairment in Italian community dwelling adults. Personal Disord. 2017;8:275–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  305. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:539–69. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  306. Ro E, Nuzum H, Clark LA. Antagonism trait facets and comprehensive psychosocial disability: comparing information across self, informant, and interviewer reports. J Abnorm Psychol. 2017;126:890–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  307. Morey LC, Skodol AE. Convergence between DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 diagnostic models for personality disorder: evaluation of strategies for establishing diagnostic thresholds. J Psychiatr Pract. 2013;19:179–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pra.0000430502.78833.06.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  308. Williams TF, Simms LJ. Personality traits and maladaptivity: unipolarity versus bipolarity. J Pers. 2018;86:888–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12363.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  309. Roberts BW, Luo J, Briley DA, Chow PI, Su R, Hill PL. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychol Bull. 2017;143:117–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  310. Bucher MA, Suzuki T, Samuel DB. A meta-analytic review of personality traits and their associations with mental health treatment outcomes. Clin Psychol Rev. 2019;70:51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  311. Clark LA, Vanderbleek EN, Shapiro JL, Nuzum H, Allen X, Daly E, et al. The brave New World of personality disorder-trait specified: effects of additional definitions on coverage, prevalence, and comorbidity. Psychopathol Rev. 2015;2:52–82. https://doi.org/10.5127/pr.036314.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  312. Hallquist MN, Wright AGC. Mixture modeling methods for the assessment of normal and abnormal personality, part I: cross-sectional models. J Pers Assess. 2014;96:256–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.845201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  313. Wright AGC, Simms LJ. A metastructural model of mental disorders and pathological personality traits. Psychol Med. 2015;45:2309–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291715000252.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  314. Kotov R, Krueger RF, Watson D, Achenbach TM, Althoff RR, Bagby RM, et al. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): a dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. J Abnorm Psychol. 2017;126:454–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  315. Conway CC, Latzman RD, Krueger RF. A meta-structural model of common clinical disorder and personality disorder symptoms. J Personal Disord in press. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_383.

  316. Rosenström T, Gjerde LC, Krueger RF, Aggen SH, Czajkowski NO, Gillespie NA, et al. Joint factorial structure of psychopathology and personality. Psychol Med in press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718002982.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  317. Krueger RF, Kotov R, Watson D, Forbes MK, Eaton NR, Ruggero CJ, et al. Progress in achieving quantitative classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry. 2018;17:282–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20566.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  318. Oltmanns JR, Smith GT, Oltmanns TF, Widiger TA. General factors of psychopathology, personality, and personality disorder: across domain comparisons. Clin Psychol Sci. 2018;6:581–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617750150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hannah Jungmann, Christine Starke, and Lara Oeltjen for their support in reviewing the published literature.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Kassel, Holländische Str. 36-38, 34127, Kassel, Germany

    Johannes Zimmermann

  2. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    André Kerber

  3. Max-Planck-Institut für Psychiatrie, Munich, Germany

    Katharina Rek

  4. University of California, Davis, CA, USA

    Christopher J. Hopwood

  5. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Robert F. Krueger

Authors
  1. Johannes Zimmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. André Kerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katharina Rek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher J. Hopwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert F. Krueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Zimmermann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Johannes Zimmermann, André Kerber, Katharina Rek, and Christopher J. Hopwood each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Robert F. Krueger is a co-author of the PID-5 and provides consulting services to aid users of the PID-5 in the interpretation of test scores. PID-5 is the intellectual property of the American Psychiatric Association, and Robert F. Krueger does not receive royalties or any other compensation from publication or administration of the inventory.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Personality Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zimmermann, J., Kerber, A., Rek, K. et al. A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep 21, 92 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1079-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1079-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation