Comparing Measures of Criterion A to Better Understand Incremental Validity in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Roche, Michael J.; Jaweed, Sarah

doi:10.1177/10731911211059763

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With respect to the nomological net associated with the PDS- ICD-11 total score, the pattern of correlations with maladaptive traits indicate that the total score captures predominantly internalizing rather than externalizing problems. This finding is consistent with results on the majority of other self-report measures of PD severity that rely on the AMPD (e.g., McCabe & Widiger, 2020; Roche & Jaweed, 2021; Roche et al, 2018; Sleep et al, 2019). The imbalance regarding internalizing problems is also reflected in the pattern of factor loadings, where diminished self-esteem (Item 2) was a particularly good indicator of severity, whereas harm to others (Item 13) was a particularly poor indicator of severity.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Validating the German version of the Personality Disorder Severity-ICD-11 Scale using nominal response models.

Zimmermann¹,

Falk²,

Wendt³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) features a new classification of personality disorders (PD), focusing on the severity of PD. Although there are numerous self-report measures that assess PD severity, to date only the Personality Disorder Severity-ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) is based on ICD-11's operationalization of PD. Initial results indicated that the PDS-ICD-11 measures a unidimensional construct, but the assumptions made for scoring its bipolar items had not been fully examined. The aim of this study is to fill this gap and investigate the latent structure of the German version of the PDS-ICD-11 using nominal response models (NRM), which allow for testing these assumptions. We applied the PDS-ICD-11 together with other self-report measures in a sample of 1,228 individuals from the general population. NRM indicated an acceptable fit of a unidimensional model, with only few deviations from the theoretically imposed scoring scheme. The total score was sufficiently reliable and correlated meaningfully with other self-report measures of PD severity. Regarding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and ICD-11 maladaptive trait domains, the total score was found to be most strongly associated with negative affectivity, whereas associations with antagonism and anankastia were small or nonsignificant. We conclude that the proposed scoring scheme of the PDS-ICD-11 items is acceptable, and the examined psychometric properties of the German version largely correspond to the results from the English-language development study. The total score, however, depicts more internalizing than externalizing personality pathology. Future studies should investigate the diagnostic efficiency of the PDS-ICD-11 scale using multiple methods and time points as well as clinical and forensic samples. Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that the scoring scheme for the items of the Personality Disorder Severity-ICD-11 (PDS-ICD-11) scale is largely appropriate, but that the total score may primarily reflect internalizing rather than externalizing problems. Multimethod and longitudinal studies are needed for a conclusive evaluation of the PDS-ICD-11.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Validating the German version of the Personality Disorder Severity-ICD-11 Scale using nominal response models.

Zimmermann¹,

Falk²,

Wendt³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2020) found that the PID-5 domains and facets accounted for significant variance in the LPFS total score (i.e., adjusted R 2 s of 53% and 55%, respectively). Roche and Jaweed (2021) also found that the five domains accounted for between 50% and 63% of the adjusted variance in three self-report versions of the LPFS. Importantly, these R 2 values are much higher than the R 2 values obtained when using the three self-report versions of the LPFS to predict each other (values ranged from 40% to 48%).…”

Section: Criterion A’s Personality Problemmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Despite their suggestion to the contrary, the LPFS provides only very small increments in variance accounted for above PID-5 traits in the prediction of other clinical outcomes. Across three samples, Roche and Jaweed (2021) examined the incremental validity provided by the Criterion A measures and PID-5 in relation to eight outcomes reflecting mental health utilization, interpersonal problems, and psychological distress. On average, across these samples, Criterion A measures provided an additional 2.83% of variance compared with the 11.9% provided by the PID-5.…”

Section: Criterion A's Personality Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The problems with Criterion A: A comment on Morey et al. (2022).

Sleep¹,

Lynam²

2022

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The alternative model of personality disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, represents a significant advancement in our understanding of personality disorders. Despite this advancement, nearly 10 years after its introduction, considerable debate remains regarding the conceptualization, operationalization, and ultimately the utility of personality impairment (i.e., Criterion A). Morey et al. (2022) review the impetus for, conceptualization of, the current state of our understanding of Criterion A, and conclude that Criterion A is a valid and clinically useful component of the alternative model of personality disorder. In our commentary, we present a more pessimistic view and review literature critical of Criterion A not included in the main text of their review. We conclude that Criterion A, as currently operationalized by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale, does not provide the functionality or utility as suggested by Morey and colleagues in their review. Instead, we suggest that pathological traits are well-positioned to capture severity of dysfunction and likely carry the most clinically useful information.

show abstract

“…Most measures of personality functioning impairment make use of self-report methods of measurement (see general and psychometric reviews by Birkholzer et al, 2021;Roche & Jaweed, 2021;and Zimmermann et al, 2019). The collection of selfreport measures include the Levels of Personality Functioning-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFA-BF 2.0; Hopwood et al, 2018).…”

Section: Measures Of Personality Functioning Impairmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Performance-Based Measure of Personality Functioning Impairment: Development and Evaluation of Reliability and Validity

Natoli¹,

Rodriguez²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the center of many dimensional models of personality is personality functioning impairment. Professional practice guidelines for personality assessment strongly advise the use of multiple methods of measurement, but available measures of personality functioning impairment are limited to self-report, clinician-/informant-rated, and interview methods. Although researchers have begun investigating established performance-based instruments’ potential for assessing personality functioning impairment, administration and scoring of these instruments is complex and the latent variables they measure ostensibly diverge from personality functioning impairment as described in the ICD-11 and DSM’s Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). To address the absence of an easily administered, scored, and interpreted performance-based measure of personality functioning impairment, we developed a novel instrument that meets these criteria and directly parallels the AMPD: The Level of Personality Functioning Scale – Questionnaire-based Implicit Association Test (LPFS-qIAT). Several aspects of the LPFS-qIAT’s reliability and validity were evaluated across four studies. This initial psychometric evaluation produced encouraging evidence supporting the new instrument’s internal and retest reliability as well as its convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. As the first performance-based measure of personality functioning impairment that aligns with the ICD-11 and AMPD that is easily administered, scored, and interpreted, the LPFS-qIAT stands to become a valuable tool in both research and clinical practice.

show abstract

Comparing Measures of Criterion A to Better Understand Incremental Validity in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Cited by 29 publications

References 60 publications

Validating the German version of the Personality Disorder Severity-ICD-11 Scale using nominal response models.

Validating the German version of the Personality Disorder Severity-ICD-11 Scale using nominal response models.

The problems with Criterion A: A comment on Morey et al. (2022).

A New Performance-Based Measure of Personality Functioning Impairment: Development and Evaluation of Reliability and Validity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About