Objective. The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence for the relationship between personality disorders (PDs), obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), and other anxiety disorders different from OCD (non-OCD) symptomatology. Method. The sample consisted of a group of 122 individuals divided into three groups (41 OCD; 40 non-OCD, and 41 controls) matched by sex, age, and educational level. All the individuals answered the IPDE questionnaire and were evaluated by means of the SCID-I and SCID-II interviews. Results. Patients with OCD and non-OCD present a higher presence of PD. There was an increase in cluster C diagnoses in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between them. Conclusions. Presenting anxiety disorder seems to cause a specific vulnerability for PD. Most of the PDs that were presented belonged to cluster C. Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) is the most common among OCD. However, it does not occur more frequently among OCD patients than among other anxious patients, which does not confirm the continuum between obsessive personality and OCD. Implications for categorical and dimensional diagnoses are discussed.

Although normal personality traits change gradually with age, personality disorders have been reported to remit rapidly and completely in little more than 10 years. Such a benign prognosis is surprising and may be due in part to the combined use of categorical diagnoses, seriously ill patients, and longitudinal designs in the existing literature. This study examines, for the first time, the development of personality pathology across a life span by means of dimensional models, represented by the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire and the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. We draw upon a cross-sectional design and four large clinical and community samples to avoid previous biases. We found that personality pathology declined by around 0.5 SD overall from age 20 to 60, though with noticeable differences between domains: Dissocial behavior and antagonism decreased by between two thirds and 1 SD; compulsivity increased at the same rate; disinhibition, negative affect, and psychoticism dropped by 0.5 SD;

Current dimensional taxonomies of personality disorder show a stronger empirical grounding than categories, but may lack the necessary level of detail to make accurate predictions and case formulations. We need to further develop the lower levels of the hierarchy until reaching the building blocks of personality pathology. The Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ) is well-suited to this purpose due to its multilayered structure and its agreement with the official dimensional classifications. We disaggregated the 18 DAPP-BQ mid-level facets through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 3233 community subjects and outpatients. We obtained a set of 72 clinically relevant, narrower subfacets, which were reliable, well-fitted to the data, and invariant between clinical and community subjects and between the sexes. This third level of Fernando Gutiérrez and Enrique Vicente contributed equally to this study.

Current dimensional taxonomies of personality disorder (PD) establish that intense traits do not suffice to diagnose a disorder, and additional constructs reflecting dysfunction are required. However, traits appear able to predict maladaptation by themselves, which might avoid duplications and simplify diagnosis. On the other hand, if trait-based diagnoses are feasible, it is the whole personality profile that should be considered, rather than individual traits. This takes us into multidimensional spaces, which have their own particular – but poorly understood – logic. The present study examines how profile-level differences between normal and disordered subjects can be used for diagnosis. The Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology – Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) were administered to a community and a clinical sample each (total n = 1,925 and 3,543 respectively). Intense traits proved to be common in the general population, so empirically-based thresholds are indispensable not to take as abnormal what is at most unideal. Profile-level parameters such as Euclidean and Mahalanobis distances outperformed individual traits in predicting mental problems and equaled the performance of published measures of dysfunction or severity. Personality profiles can play a more central role in identifying disorders than is currently acknowledged, provided that adequate metrics are used.