The newly added diagnosis complex posttraumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes a domain of disturbances in self-organization (DSO), in addition to PTSD. The DSO construct appears to have definitional overlap with the dimensional personality pathology severity measure, personality functioning. This study investigated the association between personality functioning and ICD-11 CPTSD, and the associations between DSO clusters and personality functioning domains. The sample comprised 83 outpatients with ICD-11 PTSD or CPTSD. Personality functioning was operationalized with the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, Module I. Results showed an average level of moderate impairment in personality functioning (i.e., Identity, Self-Direction, Empathy, and Intimacy) for the whole sample. However, the levels of impairment in personality functioning were significantly more severe in patients with ICD-11 CPTSD, compared with patients with PTSD. Furthermore, the results revealed strong significant positive associations between the personality functioning domains and the DSO symptom clusters, except for the LPFS Identity domain and the DSO Affective Dysregulation cluster. Contrary to expectations, we found a significant positive association between the PTSD symptom cluster Avoidance and the LPFS domains Identity, Self-Direction, and Intimacy. Furthermore, higher levels of impairment in the Identity and Intimacy domain were associated with an increase in DSO symptom severity. New development in assessment of personality functioning may assist clinicians in differential diagnosis of PTSD and CPTSD.

Borderline (BPD) and schizotypal personality disorder (SPD) were introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III). However, the clinical differentiation of the 2 diagnoses (e.g., psychotic-like features) was challenging for diagnostic classification and clinical management. With the introduction of the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) in DSM-5 Section III, a dimensional approach was proposed, which potentially holds promise for better future differentiation between BPD and SPD. The present study sought to examine the psychopathology using the AMPD model. A total of 105 patients were interviewed, 25 were excluded according to exclusion criteria, and the final sample comprised 80 patients who fulfilled the DSM-5 criteria for BPD (n = 35), SPD (n = 25), and comorbid BPD þ SPD (n = 20), respectively. All patients were administered The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders Modules I and II. One-way analysis of variance tests with planned contrasts were used. Results showed that for AMPD Criterion A, the BPD þ SPD group had the most severe impairment of personality functioning, except for Identity, where the SPD group showed the most severe impairment. For AMPD Criterion B, the domain of Detachment and the facet of Eccentricity from the Psychoticism domain were most prominent for the SPD group relative to the 2 other groups. The differentiating between BPD and SPD manifestations of cognitive/perceptual disturbances does not seem resolved by the Psychoticism domain, which covers broader aspects of psychopathology. Future research should further investigate the construct of Psychoticism, especially to differentiate nonpsychotic symptoms (e.g., dissociation) and address thought disorder.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Borderline personality disorder (BPD) and schizotypal personality disorder (SPD) were introduced in DSM-III and retained in DSM-5 Section II. They often co-occur and some aspects of the clinical differentiation between the 2 diagnoses remain unclear (e.g., psychotic-like features and identity disturbance). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The present study explored if self-reported identity disturbance and psychosis proneness could discriminate between the BPD and SPD DSM-5 diagnoses. All patients were interviewed with the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders, and administered the Inventory of Personality Organization, Self-Concept and Identity Measure, Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire, Perceptual Aberration Scale, and the Magical Ideation Scale. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 105 patients were initially assessed, 26 were excluded, and the final sample (<i>N =</i> 79) was composed of 34 BPD patients, 25 SPD patients, and 20 patients with co-occurring SPD and BPD. The BPD group (<i>n</i> = 34) was first compared with the pure SPD group (<i>n</i> = 25), and secondly with the total group of patients diagnosed with SPD (<i>n</i> = 25 + 20). Logistic regression analyses indicated that primitive defenses and disorganization best differentiated the BPD and the pure SPD group, while primitive defenses and interpersonal factor along with perceptual aberrations best differentiated the BPD and the total SPD group. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Identity disturbance did not predict the diagnostic groups, but BPD patients were characterized by primitive defenses, which are closely related to identity disturbance. Pure SPD was characterized by oddness/eccentricity, while the lack of specificity for cognitive-perceptual symptoms suggests that the positive symptoms do not differentiate BPD from SPD.