Mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the <i>ICD‐10</i> vs. <i>ICD‐11</i> classification of personality disorders

Hansen, Signe Joost; Christensen, Sune; Kongerslev, Mickey; First, Michael B.; Widiger, Thomas A.; Simonsen, Erik; Bach, Bo

doi:10.1002/pmh.1442

Cited by 45 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…), and incremental validity (i.e., Do test scores provide unique information when predicting outcomes?). Note that we will not cover research on the ICD-11 proposal in this regard, because relevant studies were often based on archival data using earlier measures [124][125][126], and studies using measures that were explicitly designed for the ICD-11 PD chapter are still scarce [25,37,38,52,[127][128][129][130].…”

Section: Further Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Zimmermann

Kerber

Kappelmann

et al. 2019

Curr Psychiatry Rep

262

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD. Recent Findings A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. Summary The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.

show abstract

Section: Further Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Zimmermann

Kerber

Kappelmann

et al. 2019

Curr Psychiatry Rep

262

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The HiTOP approach enables specification of multiple ranges on a dimension of interest based on research-based evidence, more explicitly underscoring the need for flexibility. More directly to the point, recent clinician surveys with improved methodology show that practitioners find dimensional diagnoses to be more helpful in formulating treatment plans (Glover et al, 2012; Hansen et al in press; Morey et al, 2014).…”

Section: Advantages and Limitations Of Hitop For Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We believe familiarity will resolve this issue over time. Data indicating that clinicians find dimensional models of personality acceptable or even preferred for communicating (Glover et al, 2012; Hansen et al in press; Morey et al, 2014), suggest that potential initial resistance to HiTOP based on it being viewed as more complex to communicate can be overcome as a barrier to integration.…”

Section: Barriers To the Integration Of Hitop Into Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice.

Ruggero¹,

Kotov²,

Hopwood³

et al. 2019

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Self Cite

231

202

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnosis is a cornerstone of clinical practice for mental health care providers, yet traditional diagnostic systems have well-known shortcomings, including inadequate reliability in daily practice, high co-morbidity, and marked within-diagnosis heterogeneity. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is a data-driven, hierarchically based alternative to traditional classifications that conceptualizes psychopathology as a set of dimensions organized into increasingly broad, transdiagnostic spectra. Prior work has shown that using a dimension-based approach improves reliability and validity, but translating a model like HiTOP into a workable system that is useful for health care providers remains a major challenge. To this end, the present work outlines the HiTOP model and describes the core principles to guide its integration into clinical practice. We review potential advantages and limitations for clinical utility, including case conceptualization and treatment planning. We illustrate what a HiTOP approach might look like in practice relative to traditional nosology. Finally, we discuss common barriers to using HiTOP in real-world healthcare settings and how they can be addressed.

show abstract

“…These consistent data can be regarded as a major improvement from the 10 categories currently used in the ICD‐10. In addition, practitioners consider the changes in ICD‐11 to be an improvement over the ICD‐10 9,10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD‐11 personality trait domains: Development and testing

Kim

Tyrer

Hwang

2020

Personality & Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We aimed to develop a questionnaire suitable for the assessment of trait domains in the forthcoming International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD‐11). This questionnaire, the Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD‐11 (PAQ‐11) personality trait domains, was intended as a short and reliable self‐report measure. Method The initial items were derived from the relevant traits of an established version of the Personality Assessment Schedule. In Phase 1, item selection and scale construction proceeded iteratively using data from 334 female university students and 75 psychiatric patients (combined N = 409) in Korea. In Phase 2, a validation study of the scale was conducted in a subset of the sample from Phase 1, who were deemed to be at high risk of personality disorders (N = 210). Results Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the Personality Assessment Schedule items created a 17‐item scale. This scale, PAQ‐11, demonstrated adequate convergent and discriminant validity with the five‐factor model, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition traits model and emotional difficulties. The results were consistent with its underlying theoretical structure. Conclusions The PAQ‐11 appears to be potentially promising in terms of clinical utility to assess the five domains of ICD‐11 personality disorders. More research must be conducted in other cultural backgrounds with gender‐balanced populations. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD‐10 vs. ICD‐11 classification of personality disorders

Cited by 45 publications

References 45 publications

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice.

Personality Assessment Questionnaire for ICD‐11 personality trait domains: Development and testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About