This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.practicing professionals. In the proposals, the authors address the following topics: definitions and categories; preparing the system; self-assessment; remediation; diversity; communication across various levels of the system; confidentiality; and ethical, regulatory, and legal underpinnings. They also propose future directions for the assessment of problems in professional competence in both students and practicing psychologists.

While the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorder (PD) diagnosis allows the field to systematically compare categorical and dimensional classifications, the ICD-11 proposal suggests a radical change by restricting the classification of PDs to one category, deleting all specific types, basing clinical service provision exclusively upon a severity dimension, and restricting trait domains to secondary qualifiers without defining cutoff points. This article reflects broad international agreement about the state of PD diagnosis. It is argued that diagnosis according to the ICD-11 proposal is based on broad, potentially stigmatizing descriptions of impaired functioning and ignores much of the impressive body of research and treatment guidelines that have advanced the care of adults and adolescents with borderline and other PDs. Before radically changing classification, which highly impacts the provision of health care, head-to-head field trials coupled with the views of patients as well as thorough debate among scientists are urgently needed.

With the introduction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) of a hybrid system of personality disorder assessment, the ability to assess patients' traits, as well as their level of personality functioning, has become increasingly important. To assess this criterion, the DSM-5 Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire (DLOPFQ) was developed. The DLOPFQ assesses individuals' self-impairments and other impairments in several domains (self-direction, identity, empathy, and intimacy) and across 2 contexts (work/school and relationships). A sample of 140 psychiatric and medical outpatients was administered the DLOPFQ and several other measures to assess its reliability and construct, incremental, and discriminant validity. The internal consistency and convergence with validation measures yielded generally meaningful and expected results. Several DLOPFQ scales and subscales were significantly correlated with measures of DSM-5 trait domains and levels of personality functioning. DLOPFQ scales also correlated with self-reported ratings of overdependence, detachment, healthy dependency, and overall mental health and well-being. The DLOPFQ also predicted interpersonal and general functioning beyond DSM-5 trait domains. These results support the reliability and validity of the DLOPFQ, which appears to be suitable for clinical use and warrants ongoing study. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency, type, and management of trainee impairment at a national level across doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, and school psychology and predoctoral internships. A total of 199 surveys were completed, returned, and usable. In general, doctoral programs reported a greater frequency of trainee impairment than internships. However, a greater percentage of internships had a policy and program in place for managing impairments than did doctoral programs. These findings are compared with past studies and reviews of this issue. In light of these findings, specific implications for training programs are discussed, with the recommendation that training programs address more attention to the assessment and management of such problems.

No abstract