Examining the construct validity of the Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD‐11 (PAQ‐11) personality trait domains in a community sample

Sellbom, Martin; Chiasson, Payton; Brown, Tiffany A.; Bach, Bo

doi:10.1002/pmh.1573

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We overall found anticipated or conceptually meaningful associations, with only a few deviations, indicating relevant continuity in the transition to a new PD classification system in ICD-11 . This is largely consistent with previous findings on self-reported ICD-11 trait domains and PD types (Bach et al, 2018; Bach, Kerber, et al, 2020; Fang et al, 2021; García et al, 2022; Kim et al, 2021; Lugo et al, 2019; Sellbom et al, in press; Sellbom et al, 2020; Sorrel et al, 2022) as well as meta-analytic evidence derived from research on maladaptive trait models (Miller et al, 2018; Watters et al, 2019). In the following, we seek to highlight and discuss the identified pattern of associations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…First, the current study only focused on stylistic PD features and not the actual PD diagnosis according to ICD-11 , which relies on global PD severity with respect to impairments in aspects of the self and interpersonal functioning (Simon & Bach, 2022; WHO, 2023). Thus we recommend future studies to further investigate associations between ICD-11 PD severity and traditional PD types using standardized measures (e.g., Bach et al, 2021; Sellbom et al, 2023).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, a number of studies have already investigated associations between self-reported ICD-11 trait domains and traditional PD types (Bach et al, 2018; Bach, Kerber, et al, 2020; Fang et al, 2021; García et al, 2022; Kim et al, 2021; Lugo et al, 2019; Sellbom et al, 2020; Sellbom et al, in press; Simon et al, 2023; Sorrel et al, 2022), which overall showed expected and conceptually coherent associations. However, associations have not yet been investigated with respect to clinician ratings performed by practitioners, which is deemed important because self-report bias seems to increase by the severity of personality pathology (e.g., Nuzum et al, 2019).…”

Section: International Classification Of Diseases (11th Edition; Icd-...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinician-rated ICD-11 trait domains and personality disorder types.

Lambrecht,

Simon,

Bach

2024

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Classification of Diseases (11th edition; ICD-11) has adopted a classification of personality disorders (PDs) that abolishes the established International Classification of Diseases (10th edition; ICD-10) PD types in favor of global severity and stylistic trait domain specifiers. The goal of the current study was to describe the empirical relationship between traditional PD types and the ICD-11 trait domains, which is anticipated to inform and guide clinicians in this profound transition. A total of 246 patients were rated by their clinicians. The Informant-Personality Inventory for ICD-11 was used to rate ICD-11 trait domains while PD types were assigned categorically according to ICD-10. Empirical associations were investigated by means of bivariate correlation and logistic regression analyses with bootstrapping. Results overall showed expected and conceptually meaningful associations between ICD-11 trait domains and categorical ICD-10 PD types, with only a few unexpected deviations. Findings suggest that ICD-11 trait domains capture stylistic features of the established PD types in a conceptually coherent manner. These findings may facilitate continuity and guide translation between categorical PD types (i.e., ICD-10 and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [fifth edition]) and the new ICD-11 classification in mental health care. Future research should seek to replicate these findings in various clinical settings while also integrating the essential PD severity classification.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: International Classification Of Diseases (11th Edition; Icd-...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinician-rated ICD-11 trait domains and personality disorder types.

Lambrecht,

Simon,

Bach

2024

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the Paranoid PD type is characterized by a combative and tenacious sense of self-righteousness and a tendency to experience excessive self-aggrandizing ( 37 ), which is somewhat indicative of features defining the Dissociality domain such as anger, temper tantrums, and denigration of others combined with certain aspects of self-centeredness ( 1 ). Three studies also showed substantial associations with Detachment ( 21 , 24 , 29 ), which is also consistent with previous research ( 7 ) and conceptualizations ( 38 ).…”

Section: Associations Between Personality Disorder Types and Icd-11 T...supporting

confidence: 90%

“…We used PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and a broad snowballing method to identify a total of nine relevant studies investigating associations between traditional PD types and ICD-11 trait domain scores (14,17,(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30). We chose to include exclusively articles published after 2017, with the rationale being that ICD-11 has gone through a number of iterations, in which diagnostic definitions have undergone significant changes (5,(31)(32)(33)(34).…”

Section: The Current Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-walking personality disorder types to ICD-11 trait domains: An overview of current findings

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ICD-11 has adopted a classification of Personality Disorders (PD) that abolishes the established categorical PD types in favor of global severity classification with specification of individual trait domains. To facilitate and guide this profound transition, an overview of current research on empirical associations between established PD types and ICD-11 trait domains seems warranted. We identified a total of 9 relevant studies from 2018 to 2022, which were based on both clinical and community samples from U.S., China, Brazil, Denmark, Spain, Korea, and Canada. The patterns of associations with ICD-11 trait domains were systematically synthesized and portrayed for each PD type. Findings overall showed expected and conceptually meaningful associations between categorical PD types and ICD-11 trait domains, with only few deviations. Based on these findings, we propose a cross-walk for translating categorical PD types into ICD-11 trait domains. More research is needed in order to further guide continuity and translation between ICD-10 and ICD-11 PD classification in mental healthcare, including facet-level ICD-11 trait information. Moreover, the nine reviewed studies only relied on self-reported ICD-11 trait domains, which should be expanded with clinician-rated trait domains in future research. Finally, future research should also take ICD-11’s essential PD severity classification into account.

show abstract

Reliability and validity of the Personality Disorder Severity ICD‐11 (PDS‐ICD‐11) scale and the Revised Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD‐11 (PAQ‐11R) in a Norwegian community sample

Lorentzen,

Bårdsen,

Thimm

2024

Personality & Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the ICD‐11, a new model for the diagnosis of personality disorders is included, consisting of an assessment of the severity of personality impairment as well as an optional evaluation of pathological personality traits. This study aimed to examine the reliability, structural validity, and convergent and discriminant validity of the Norwegian versions of the Personality Disorder Severity ICD‐11 (PDS‐ICD‐11) scale for the assessment of personality disorder severity and the Revised Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD‐11 (PAQ‐11R) for the assessment of the ICD‐11 pathological personality traits in a Norwegian community sample. The sample consisted of 295 participants (75.9% female) with a mean age of 30.0 years (SD = 10.7 years). The participants answered the PDS‐ICD‐11, PAQ‐11R, Level of Personality Functioning Scale–Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS‐BF 2.0), and the Personality Inventory for DSM‐5–Brief Form Plus Modified (PID5BF + M). The Norwegian PDS‐ICD‐11 showed good reliability. Support for a unidimensional model and a high convergent correlation with the LPFS‐BF 2.0 was found. The reliability analysis of the Norwegian PAQ‐11R scales yielded mixed findings with suboptimal reliability estimates for the PAQ‐11R detachment, disinhibition, and dissociality scales. Analyzing the structure of the PAQ‐11R items, four factors emerged (negative affectivity, detachment, disinhibition, and anankastia). The PAQ‐11R scales showed good convergent and, overall, adequate discriminant validity with the PID5BF + M scales. The findings support the use of the PDS‐ICD‐11 for assessing severity in the ICD‐11 PD model in Norway. The Norwegian PAQ‐11R appears to be a useful screening tool for the ICD‐11 PD trait domains.

show abstract

Examining the construct validity of the Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD‐11 (PAQ‐11) personality trait domains in a community sample

Cited by 12 publications

References 33 publications

Clinician-rated ICD-11 trait domains and personality disorder types.

Clinician-rated ICD-11 trait domains and personality disorder types.

Cross-walking personality disorder types to ICD-11 trait domains: An overview of current findings

Reliability and validity of the Personality Disorder Severity ICD‐11 (PDS‐ICD‐11) scale and the Revised Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD‐11 (PAQ‐11R) in a Norwegian community sample

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About