The Inter-Rater Reliability and Validity of the Italian Translation of the Structured Clinical Interview for <i>DSM-5</i> Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I and Module II: A Preliminary Report on Consecutively Admitted Psychotherapy Outpatients

Somma, Antonella; Borroni, Serena; Gialdi, Giulia; Carlotta, Davide; Giarolli, Laura; Barranca, Margherita; Cerioli, Carlotta; Franzoni, Chiara; Masci, Elisabetta; Manini, Riccardo; Busso, Stefano Luca; Ruotolo, Giulia; Krueger, Robert F.; Markon, Kristian E.; Fossati, Andrea

doi:10.1521/pedi_2020_34_511

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, it looks like more patients were diagnosed with SPD and BPD using the AMPD model compared to Section II. The study suggested that the problem of the overlap among PD diagnoses stem from relying on imposing arbitrary boundaries on continuous personality dimensions and that adopting a dimensional perspective on PD assessment based on a single personality disorder-trait specified (PD-TS) diagnosis is likely to represent the best answer to this problem (Somma, Borroni, et al, 2019). Others have also argued that the AMPD hybrid PD types still suffer from some lack of specificity in diagnostic profiles, whereas a PD-TS diagnosis always provides complete trait information and that Criteria A and B together simply, clearly, and comprehensively characterize all individuals with PD (Clark et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study by Somma, Borroni, et al (2019) examined interrating of SCID-5-AMPD Module III (the interview for the hybrid model) and found support for the hypothesis that the SCID-5-AMPD-III PD diagnoses are provided with adequate interrater reliability and convergent validity with SCID-5-PD diagnoses. Interestingly, it looks like more patients were diagnosed with SPD and BPD using the AMPD model compared to Section II.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reconceptualization of borderline conditions through the lens of the alternative model of personality disorders.

Meisner

Bach

Lenzenweger

et al. 2022

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Borderline (BPD) and schizotypal personality disorder (SPD) were introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III). However, the clinical differentiation of the 2 diagnoses (e.g., psychotic-like features) was challenging for diagnostic classification and clinical management. With the introduction of the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) in DSM-5 Section III, a dimensional approach was proposed, which potentially holds promise for better future differentiation between BPD and SPD. The present study sought to examine the psychopathology using the AMPD model. A total of 105 patients were interviewed, 25 were excluded according to exclusion criteria, and the final sample comprised 80 patients who fulfilled the DSM-5 criteria for BPD (n = 35), SPD (n = 25), and comorbid BPD þ SPD (n = 20), respectively. All patients were administered The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders Modules I and II. One-way analysis of variance tests with planned contrasts were used. Results showed that for AMPD Criterion A, the BPD þ SPD group had the most severe impairment of personality functioning, except for Identity, where the SPD group showed the most severe impairment. For AMPD Criterion B, the domain of Detachment and the facet of Eccentricity from the Psychoticism domain were most prominent for the SPD group relative to the 2 other groups. The differentiating between BPD and SPD manifestations of cognitive/perceptual disturbances does not seem resolved by the Psychoticism domain, which covers broader aspects of psychopathology. Future research should further investigate the construct of Psychoticism, especially to differentiate nonpsychotic symptoms (e.g., dissociation) and address thought disorder.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualization of borderline conditions through the lens of the alternative model of personality disorders.

Meisner

Bach

Lenzenweger

et al. 2022

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The SCID-II and SCID-5-PD are semistructured clinical interviews consisting of 90 items in total, measuring the DSM PD categories avoidant, dependent, obsessive–compulsive, paranoid, schizotypal, schizoid, histrionic, narcissistic, borderline, and antisocial PDs as well as the criteria for conduct disorder. Both the SCID-II and the SCID-5-PD have been shown to have good interrater reliability in European samples (Lobbestael, Leurgans, & Arntz, 2011; Somma et al 2017). All items are scored on a 3-point-scale: not present, subthreshold, and present.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More is more: Evidence for the incremental value of the SCID-II/SCID-5-PD specific factors over and above a general personality disorder factor.

Paap¹,

Heltne²,

Pedersen³

et al. 2022

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, 3 competing conceptualizations of personality dysfunction can be distinguished: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM–5) categorical model delineating 10 distinct types of personality disorders (PDs); the alternative model for PDs (DSM–5 Section III), which assesses personality functioning and traits separately; and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Version conceptualization, which provides 1 single code for the presence of a PD (which is based on problems in functioning) as well as codes that specify the level of the disorder (mild/moderate/severe), and prominent trait domains or patterns (5 domains and 1 pattern). The current study aims to assess the incremental value of the DSM–5 PDs over and above a global personality dysfunction factor, using expert ratings obtained with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV PDs and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–5 PDs interview in a large sample of clinical patients (N = 3,851). All estimated bifactor models provided adequate fit to the data. We found a surprisingly low explained common variance for the g-factor (<40%), indicating that ignoring the specific PD factors would lead to a substantial loss of information. The strongest specific PDs in terms of explained common variance were the avoidant, schizotypal, and schizoid PD factors and the conduct disorder criteria set if included. Correlations between our factors and external variables were relatively low, except for the Severity Indices of Personality Problems, which aims to measure personality functioning. Our findings suggest that specific PDs still have an important role to play in the assessment of personality pathology.

show abstract

“…Most studies have been conducted with the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1; Hutsebaut et al, 2017) and the Structured Clinical Interview for the AMPD-Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I; Bender et al, 2018). Overall good to excellent interrater reliability could be demonstrated with both, the STiP-5.1 (Hutsebaut et al, 2017(Hutsebaut et al, , 2021Weekers et al, 2021;Zettl et al, 2019) and SCID-5-AMPD-I (Buer Christensen et al, 2018;Somma et al, 2020). Test-retest reliability was also good when using the SCID-5-AMPD-I, though the coefficients for a few subdomains were questionable (Buer Christensen et al, 2018).…”

Section: Research On Lpfs-based Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Reliability, structure, and validity of module I (personality functioning) of the Structured Clinical Interview for the alternative DSM–5 model for personality disorders (SCID-5-AMPD-I).

Ohse¹,

Zimmermann²,

Kerber³

et al. 2023

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM–5), a moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning is the essential criterion for a personality disorder diagnosis. Personality functioning is operationalized in the Level of Personality Functioning Scale via 4 domains (identity, self-direction, empathy, and intimacy) and 2 higher order dimensions (self and interpersonal functioning). The current study examined the reliability (interrater, test–retest), structure, and validity (convergent, discriminant, and incremental) of the Structured Clinical Interview for the AMPD–Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I). A clinical sample (n = 121) completed the SCID-5-AMPD-I, along with an interview for DSM–5 Section II personality disorders and self-reports for personality pathology (personality functioning, personality organization, personality structure, and pathological personality traits) and other forms of psychopathology (depression, anxiety, somatization, and general disability). Interrater and test–retest reliability was excellent for overall personality functioning, the higher order dimensions, and the domains, except for the empathy domain in the test–retest condition. Factor analyses suggest that personality functioning is an essentially unidimensional construct. Personality functioning demonstrated high convergence with other forms of personality pathology and showed good discriminant validity in relation to depression, anxiety, and somatization but not in relation to the broader construct of general disability. Personality functioning (Criterion A) showed incremental validity over pathological personality traits (Criterion B) in predicting interview-assessed DSM–5 Section II personality disorders but not in predicting self-reported personality and general psychopathology. The present study suggests that the SCID-5-AMPD-I is a viable measure for personality functioning.

show abstract

The Inter-Rater Reliability and Validity of the Italian Translation of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I and Module II: A Preliminary Report on Consecutively Admitted Psychotherapy Outpatients

Cited by 27 publications

References 48 publications

Reconceptualization of borderline conditions through the lens of the alternative model of personality disorders.

Reconceptualization of borderline conditions through the lens of the alternative model of personality disorders.

More is more: Evidence for the incremental value of the SCID-II/SCID-5-PD specific factors over and above a general personality disorder factor.

Reliability, structure, and validity of module I (personality functioning) of the Structured Clinical Interview for the alternative DSM–5 model for personality disorders (SCID-5-AMPD-I).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About