discussion

ATTACHED FILE(S)
Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapter 10 of the course textbook. Pay close attention to the two case illustrations in Section 10.4 as these may inform the creation of the illustration in your initial post. Also, read the articles
An Integrated Approach to Treatment of Patients With Personality Disorders(Links to an external site.)
and
Pathological Personality Traits Can CaptureDSM–IVPersonality Disorder Types(Links to an external site.)
(Clarkin et al., 2015; Miller,et al., 2015).
For this discussion, select one of the personality disorders discussed in Chapter 10 that you find interesting, then conduct web research to find a person (i.e., living or not, historical, famous, and/or even fictional) who suffers from the disorder you chose to serve as a case study. Then choose a model of personality that will serve as a framework for devising a theoretical explanation and therapeutic intervention for the case you selected.
For your initial post,
· Describe the personality disorder for the case study you selected.
· Apply the theories in your selected model to explain how the disorder may have developed for your particular case and what may have been the underlying causes. The primary focus here should be on the theoretical explanation of how your chosen disorder may have developed and should not be a detailed description of the disorder.
· Discuss possible therapeutic interventions that might be applied in your case, based on your chosen model.
Your initial post should be a minimum of 350 words and should incorporate at least one peer-reviewed article.
Guided Response:Respond substantively to at least two of your peers. Select one classmate who has chosen a different personality disorder than you did. Analyze the fictional case presented, and provide feedback on the explanation of the development and causes of your peer’s chosen disorder. Suggest other elements related to the model that might be included. If possible, also respond to a classmate who has chosen the same disorder as you have but has approached it from a different theoretical perspective. Compare and contrast your analysis to those of your classmates.
An Integrated Approach to Treatment of Patients
With Personality Disorders
John F. Clarkin
Weill Cornell Medical College
Nicole Cain
Long Island University
W. John Livesley
University of British Columbia
We describe a framework for the application of treatment modules to the major
domains of dysfunction manifested by clients with personality disorder. This integrated
approach takes the clinician beyond the existing limited treatment research by using
strategies and techniques from all the major treatment schools and orientations. This
effort is necessary and timely because the field of personality disorders is currently
struggling to further define and understand personality pathology beyond categories by
articulating major dimensions of dysfunction across the personality disorder types
marked by various degrees of severity.
Keywords: personality disorders, psychotherapy, psychotherapy integration
Personality disorders (PDs) are prevalent and
debilitating and have a powerful negative im-
pact on work functioning and intimate and in-
terpersonal relations. There are many impedi-
ments to the treatment of patients with
personality pathology, including controversies
in defining PD, the rampant comorbidity among
PDs and with symptom disorders, the range of
severity across the disorders, the difficulties in
identifying the key dimensions of personality
dysfunction, and the paucity of treatment re-
search on the numerous PD types.
In this article, we articulate an integrated
modular approach to the treatment of PDs. We
describe a framework for the application of
treatment modules to the major domains of dys-
function manifested by clients with PD. This is
called an integrated approach (Stricker, 2010;
Norcross & Wampold, 2011), because it takes
the clinician beyond the existing treatment re-
search—which is limited—and uses strategies
and techniques from all the major treatment
schools and orientations. An integrated modular
approach emphasizes: (a) the individuality of
the patient, and not the category of disorder, (b)
the domains of dysfunction in the individual
patient, (c) the therapeutic use of modules of
intervention from existing clinical approaches,
especially those that have been empirically in-
vestigated, and (d) the construction of a smooth
fabric of intervention in the context of a devel-
oping alliance between therapist and patient.
Our attempt here and elsewhere (Livesley,
Dimaggio, & Clarkin, in press) is to further the
effort at integration by articulating a treatment
framework specifically for those individuals
with PDs. This effort is necessary because the
field of PDs is currently struggling to further
define and understand personality pathology be-
yond categories by articulating major dimen-
sions of dysfunction across the PD types
marked by various degrees of severity (Clarkin,
2013).
There is an emerging consensus that the es-
sence of the PDs across the various categorical
types centers on difficulties in self-functioning
and interpersonal functioning (Sanislow et al.,
2010). The product of the Diagnostic and Sta-
tistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edi-
tion (DSM-5) Personality Disorder Work
John F. Clarkin, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell
Medical College; Nicole Cain, Department of Psychology,
Long Island University; W. John Livesley, Department of
Psychiatry, University of British Columbia.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to John F. Clarkin, New York Presbyterian Hospi-
tal, Weill Cornell Medical Center—Westchester Division,
21 Bloomingdale Road, White Plains, NY 10605. E-mail:
jclarkin@med.cornell.edu
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration © 2015 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 25, No. 1, 3–12 1053-0479/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038766
3
mailto:jclarkin@med.cornell.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038766
Group—located in Section III of DSM-5
(2013)—provides a potential correction to the
previously predominant focus on symptoms, be-
cause it brings the field back to focus on the
essence of personality pathology that is self and
interpersonal functioning.
Why Consider an Integrated
Approach to Treatment?
Evidence-based practice is defined as the
combination of best available research with
clinical expertise in the context of patient char-
acteristics, culture, and preferences. There is
every cogent reason to use information from
empirically supported treatments when avail-
able, but in reference to the PDs, the treatment
research is limited to a few disorders, and even
with those disorders, the results tend to be com-
parable across treatment packages. Evidence-
based practice for PDs must contend with a
number of limitations in the research literature,
and use clinical expertise to match the individ-
ual client with the best treatment approaches.
The difficulties with applying the empirically
supported treatment approach to the PDs are
numerous. For example, PDs are marked by
heterogeneity both within diagnosis and with
comorbidity across the PDs. The various con-
stellations that PD assumes make it difficult to
articulate a treatment that fits all individuals
even within one PD category. In addition, psy-
chotherapy research to date is limited to a few
disorders with relatively comparable effects.
Only a few of the 10 DSM PDs have attracted
psychotherapy research, with the vast majority
of treatment research focused on borderline per-
sonality disorder (BPD). There is no indication
that each disorder will be investigated with
treatment research, but the clinician must pro-
ceed despite this situation.
There is also a growing awareness that genes
and neurocognitive dysfunction are not specific
to a particular diagnostic category, but rather
are functions across diagnostic categories that
are potential foci for therapeutic intervention.
Molecular genetics will not provide a simple,
gene-based classification of psychiatric ill-
nesses, but rather genetic findings will likely
delineate specific biological pathways and do-
mains of psychopathology (Craddock, 2013). In
this regard, the National Institute of Mental
Health has declared an initiative to focus re-
search not on categories of mental illness but on
systems of neurocognitive functioning and dys-
function that extend across diagnostic catego-
ries (Hyman, 2011).
Finally, medicine in general is advancing to-
ward an individualized approach to both assess-
ment and treatment. Each individual is biolog-
ically unique, and this uniqueness suggests that
treatment should be tailored to the individual.
Although there are commonalities across people
at the psychological level of functioning, it has
become evident that each individual has a
unique psychological history of development
and engagement in the environment (Norcross
& Wampold, 2011). This uniqueness is the fo-
cus of the clinicians’ assessment of clients with
suspected PD, the results of which guide the
tailored intervention with that client.
With these issues in mind, we are recom-
mending an integrated treatment approach that
is probably already the most popular approach
to the treatment of clients with PDs. We think it
remains important to describe an integrated ap-
proach to the treatment of PDs in order to fur-
ther clarify the issues and refine the approach.
An articulation of an integrated approach to
treatment may also legitimize the wise integra-
tive approaches of many clinicians who worry
that they are violating the empirical treatment
recommendations.
What Is Integration?
We regard integration as a mental process
engaged in by the clinician. This process begins
at the first meeting between therapist and pa-
tient. The focus of the integration is the indi-
vidual patient with a PD who is seeking help.
The content of integration is the unique combi-
nation of domains of dysfunction matched with
modules of intervention that are applied in a
particular sequence over time.
In this conception of integration, one can
conceive of a number of steps in this process:
(a) arriving at a working conception of the pa-
tients’ dysfunctional domains, (b) generating a
vision of how the client could realistically
achieve a better level of adjustment, (c) imag-
ining how this client can improve over time in a
stepwise, progressive pattern, (d) using thera-
peutic interventions timed to the client’s readi-
ness to change and salient problems at the mo-
ment, and (e) therapist awareness throughout
4 CLARKIN, CAIN, AND LIVESLEY
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
treatment of the client’s perception of him or
her and the impact on the process of change.
The process of integration as conceptualized
here is quite consistent with the empirically
supported treatment approach mentioned be-
fore. In the absence of empirical evidence for
specific treatments for each of the PDs, and in
the absence of empirical information on mech-
anisms of change, the clinician is forced to use
his or her clinical judgment moment-to-moment
and across a treatment episode.
Probably the most salient exception to the
dearth of empirically supported treatments for
PDs is the treatment evidence for BPD. Cogni-
tive– behavioral (Linehan, 1993), mentaliza-
tion-based (Bateman & Fonagy, 2006), and ob-
ject relations treatment (Clarkin, Yeomans, &
Kernberg, 2006) are all empirically supported.
Although we know that these treatment pack-
ages are associated with symptom change, there
is little clarity about which elements in each
approach are effective. In addition, some clients
do not respond to the particular approach. It is
possible that a more tailored approach to the
particular patient with his or her unique
strengths, weaknesses, and environment may
produce significant change.
Different Approaches to
Psychotherapy Integration
Stricker (2010) has summarized the history
and approaches to psychotherapy integration,
that is, common factors and technical, theoreti-
cal, and assimilative approaches. Each of these
approaches deserves description to clarify how
they might be used in full or in part for clients
with PD. The common factors approach refers
to the use of techniques that are used across
treatments, regardless of the theoretical orienta-
tion. Theoretical integration is an attempt to
integrate theories, such as behavioral theory and
psychoanalytic theory, to guide the treatment
interventions. Our own view is that the field of
PDs has profited from multiple theoretical ap-
proaches, but none of which to date are com-
prehensive and empirically grounded to ade-
quately guide therapeutic interventions
(Lenzenweger & Clarkin, 2005). These theories
are best described as part-theories. Theoretical
integration concerning the PDs will advance as
the empirical research progresses; however, the
clinician cannot wait for the emergence of a
comprehensive theory of personality and PDs
and instead needs a near-experience model of
personality and personality disordered function-
ing as a map to assessment and intervention.
Assimilative integration is an approach that
rests on one theoretical position, and from that
position incorporating techniques from other
therapeutic approaches.
The framework for an integrated modular
approach in this article is closest to technical
integration, which is the systematic use of tech-
niques from numerous orientations without re-
gard for theoretical orientation. Although we
refer to a prominent theory of normal personal-
ity functioning to guide thinking, there is still no
comprehensive theory of PDs (Lenzenweger &
Clarkin, 2005).
An empirically supported theory of person-
ality functioning can serve as a foundation for
progressing to an understanding of personal-
ity dysfunction. For example, Mischel and
Shoda (2008) have articulated a cogni-
tive�affective processing system (CAPS)
model of personality functioning that can pro-
vide an overall framework for understanding
personality functioning. The CAPS model fo-
cuses on the processes by which individuals
construe situations and themselves in adapt-
ing to the environment. This metatheory em-
phases five levels of experience: (a) an orga-
nized pattern of activation of internal
cognitive�affective units (e.g., conceptions
of self and others, expectancies and beliefs,
affects, goals and values, self-regulatory
plans), (b) behavioral expressions of this in-
ternal processing system, (c) self and other
perception of these behaviors over time, (d)
construction of one’s typical environment,
and (e) the predispositions at the biological
and genetic levels of existence. This frame-
work suggests that personality dysfunction
can occur at multiple levels, and assessment
of these crucial areas could guide targets for
intervention. Lacking a comprehensive theory
of personality pathology, we suggest that the
therapist focus on the domains of dysfunction
and how they manifest in the client’s partic-
ular environment. With the CAPS model, the
therapist would attend to both observable be-
havior and how the patient uses his or her
particular conceptualizations of self-other in-
teractions that guide behavior.
5INTEGRATED TREATMENT OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
An Integrated Modular Approach
Given the issues we have described above
with the assessment and treatment of PD, it
seems logical to consider the specific client in
terms of salient interpersonal difficulties and
how these difficulties are manifested in that
individual’s unique environment. Domains of
dysfunction and severity of these dysfunctions
become as important in the clinical workup as
the identification of the PD category itself. An
integrated modular approach is an invitation to
drop categorization of strategies and techniques
related to therapy school (e.g., cognitive–
behavioral, psychodynamic), and instead to fo-
cus on patient domains of dysfunction and a
variety of ways to approach them with effective
treatment modules.
Domains of Pathology in Clients With PDs
An integrated approach focuses on domains
of pathology rather than on the specific diag-
nostic categories of PD. We do this because of
the domains of dysfunction that are common
across the various PD diagnoses. The central
difficulty in those with PD is an observable
dysfunction in interpersonal relations, with a
more covert difficulty in the mental representa-
tions of self and others (Pincus, 2005; Kernberg,
1984). It is well documented that individuals
scoring high on any PD dimension have consid-
erable interpersonal difficulties characterized by
a solitary lifestyle, conflicted and distressed so-
cial relations, and lack of social support (Hen-
gartner, Müller, Rodgers, Rössler, & Ajdacic-
Gross, 2014).
With a focus on the CAPS model (Mischel &
Shoda, 2008), the domains of PD functioning
can be identified through an inspection of
DSM-5, self-report instruments, and theoretical
descriptions of the PDs.
When the DSM categories are examined at
the individual criterion level, one can recognize
the following domains of dysfunction:
• Defective or relative absence of moral
functioning (e.g., dishonesty, stealing,
physical violence, disregard for the rights
of others)
• Suicidal and self-destructive behavior;
fearful behaviors; obsessive behaviors
• Difficulties relating to others (e.g., perva-
sive distrust of others, detachment from
social relations, reduced capacity for close
relationships, instability in interpersonal re-
lations, excessive attention seeking, avoid-
ance, submissive and clinging behavior,
preoccupation with interpersonal control,
conflict, aggression)
• Difficulties in self-definition (e.g., feelings
of inadequacy, hypersensitivity to negative
evaluation, grandiosity, lack of empathy,
lack of goals).
Another approach to capture the salient areas
of function and dysfunction in personality and
PDs is to examine the factors or traits incorpo-
rated in major self-report questionnaires. For
example, major dimensional models of person-
ality and personality pathology converge on
four higher order traits: (a) neuroticism/
negative affectivity/emotional dysregulation,
(b) extraversion/positive affectivity, (c) disso-
cial/antagonism, and (d) constraint/compulsiv-
ity, conscientiousness (Trull, 2006). Newer in-
struments (e.g., the Severity Indices of
Personality Problems) focus on five factors of
personality functioning: self-control (e.g., emo-
tion regulation, effortful control), identity inte-
gration, relational capacities (e.g., intimacy, en-
during relationships), responsibility, and social
concordance (e.g., respect, cooperation; Ver-
heul et al., 2008).
In addition, measures such as the Inventory
of Interpersonal Problems have been used to
examine the specific interpersonal difficulties
associated with PDs. For example, paranoid,
narcissistic, and antisocial PDs are often asso-
ciated with domineering, vindictive interper-
sonal behavior, while histrionic PD is related to
intrusive interpersonal behavior. Avoidant PD
has been linked to avoidant and nonassertive
interpersonal behaviors and dependent PD is
characterized by exploitable interpersonal be-
havior (Wiggins & Pincus, 1989).
In summary, converging lines of evidence
have suggested four major areas of dysfunction
in individuals with PD: symptoms, emotion reg-
ulation difficulties, interpersonal functioning,
and self-functioning.
Treatment Modules
One way to tailor the treatment to the indi-
vidual is to assess for domains of dysfunction
and to match treatment modules to these do-
mains. We describe modules of treatment as an
6 CLARKIN, CAIN, AND LIVESLEY
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
interconnected series of therapist interventions
(i.e., techniques) that have a specific dysfunc-
tional target. We have selected treatment mod-
ules from larger intervention packages that have
been empirically investigated (e.g., Bateman &
Fonagy, 2006; Clarkin et al., 2006; Linehan,
1993), or treatment modules devised by clinical
researchers with experience intervening with
specific target areas (e.g., Safran & Muran,
2000).
We describe two overarching modules of
treatment for those suffering from PD: (a) gen-
eral treatment modules that are used to structure
treatment, to enhance motivation for change,
and to manage the relationship between patient
and therapist (see Table 1), and (b) specific
treatment modules for specific domains of dys-
function.
General Treatment Module
Structuring treatment can be accomplished by a
careful and collaborative assessment (Hilsenroth
& Cromer, 2007), followed by negotiating a ver-
bal contract and framework for the therapeutic
work (Clarkin et al., 2006). The framework pro-
vides the client with the responsibilities of both
therapist and client necessary to achieve a success-
ful treatment. However, the structure of the treat-
ment continues beyond the early assessment and
throughout the entire treatment episode.
Clients with PDs often encounter difficul-
ties with interpersonal functioning. Inevita-
bly, one of the first challenges of working
with PD clients is navigating the interpersonal
component of the therapy—the therapeutic
relationship. Safran and Muran (2000) have
emphasized that clients and therapists are em-
bedded in a relational matrix (Mitchell,
1988)—the therapeutic alliance—which is
shaped moment-to-moment by the implicit
needs and desires of client and therapist. Rup-
tures occur when there is tension between the
client’s and the therapist’s respective needs
and desires (Safran & Muran, 2000), and,
thus, ruptures are inevitable events in therapy
and should not be viewed as obstacles to
overcome but rather as opportunities for ther-
apeutic change. It is important for therapists
to be aware that clients often have negative or
ambivalent feelings about the therapeutic re-
lationship, which may be difficult for them to
acknowledge or to even understand. This is
especially true for PD clients. Therefore, ther-
apists should be attuned to subtle indications
of changes or ruptures in the therapeutic alli-
ance and should take the initiative to explore
these changes or ruptures moment-to-moment
in the therapy. Client change following the
exploration of an alliance rupture can be un-
derstood as involving two processes: an in-
creasing immediate awareness of self and
other, and a new interpersonal experience
with the therapist ideally resulting in social
learning that can be generalized outside of the
therapeutic relationship (Safran & Muran,
2000).
Treatment Modules for Specific Domains
and Their Sequencing
Most central to the process of treatment inte-
gration is a vision or road map concerning the
sequence of change for clients with PD. Be-
cause one of the client’s difficulties is an inabil-
ity to see a way out of current difficulties, it is
the therapist who must have an eye on the
Table 1
General Treatment Module
Treatment modules Specific procedures
Assessing personality pathology Assessment interview
Focus on domains of dysfunction
Structuring the treatment Establishing a treatment framework
Monitoring the relationship Resolving alliance ruptures
Validating the patient
Therapist alert to indications of patient positive
and negative views of therapist/therapy
Reciprocal communication strategies
Mentalizing interventions
7INTEGRATED TREATMENT OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
changes needed and a flexible plan of sequential
changes.
The sequence of targets of change depends on
the specific PD, but more directly, it depends on
the relative severity. Of necessity, the therapist
places a priority in the sequence of addressing
domains of dysfunction. We have described the
five phases of the treatment of patients with
PDs, including: (a) ensuring the safety of the
patient and others in the patient’s environment;
(b) containment of symptoms, emotions, and
impulses; (c) control and modulation of emo-
tions and impulses that contribute to symptoms,
including deliberate self-harm; (d) exploration
and change of the more stable cognitive�emo-
tional structures underlying maladaptive behavior
and interpersonal patterns; and (e) integration and
synthesis of a more adaptive self-structure (see
Table 2). The sequence of intervention is dictated
by concern for patient safety before moving onto
other issues, and a conception of what domains
must change in order for other domains to be
approached.
The safety issue is clear when physical integ-
rity of either the patient or a significant others is
relevant. For example, behaviors such as wrist
cutting or more serious suicidal behaviors must
be addressed immediately. This would also in-
clude potentially dangerous physical fights be-
tween patients and their intimate others. Crisis
intervention, medication, structure, and support
are all important elements in ensuring safety for
the patient. As patient safety increases, the treat-
ment can progress to a containment phase in
which structure and support are essential for the
modulation of intense emotions and impaired
cognitive functioning.
Emotion regulation, either deficient regula-
tion or constriction and inhibition, becomes the
next focus of intervention. Emotion regulation
refers to a range of cognitive�affective abilities
the individual uses to monitor, evaluate, and
modify their emotional response to interper-
sonal and other environmental demands in order
to achieve their goals (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012).
In contrast to individuals with emotion regula-
tion skills and strategies, individuals with psy-
chopathology often exhibit emotion dysregula-
tion. Emotion dysregulation is a disrupted
domain of functioning that is central to many
disorders, including depression and anxiety dis-
Table 2
Treatment Phase and Priorities Matched to Treatment Modules
Treatment phase Treatment modules
Phase 1: Patient safety Crisis intervention
Brief hospitalization
Medication
Structure and support
Phase 2: Containment Structure and support
Establishing the treatment frame (Clarkin et al., 2006; Linehan, 1993)
Medication
Phase 3: Control and modulation Functional analysis of behavior (Linehan, 1993), with a growing awareness of
links between cognition, emotion, and behavior
Awareness and mentalization of interpersonal triggers (Bateman & Fonagy,
2006)
Mindfulness (Linehan, 1993)
Ability to identify and label emotions (Linehan, 1993)
Distress tolerance skills, such as distraction and self-soothing (Linehan, 1993)
Interpersonal effectiveness skills, such as the ability to seek out appropriate
social support and effective help-seeking behavior (Linehan, 1993)
Phase 4: Exploration and change Examination of interpersonal schemas and alliance ruptures (Safran & Muran,
2000), interpersonal signatures (Pincus, 2005; Cain & Pincus, in press), and
dominant object relations (Clarkin et al., 2006)
Phase 5: Integration and synthesis Examine sense of self and expand self-narrative (Dimaggio et al, in press) by
constructing a personal niche through engaging in hobbies, work, and
improved romantic relationships (Clarkin et al., 2006)
Expand curiosity and perception of others through mentalization (Bateman &
Fonagy, 2006) and exploration of transference (Clarkin et al., 2006)
8 CLARKIN, CAIN, AND LIVESLEY
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
orders, eating disorders, alcohol abuse, and PDs
(Nolen-Hoeksema, 2012).
The treatment of those with emotion dysregu-
lation can take many forms with the overlapping
goals of decreasing maladaptive emotion strat-
egies, such as rumination, and increasing emo-
tion regulating strategies, such as attentional
redeployment, reappraisal, and problem solv-
ing. The treatment of emotion dysregulation can
be approached by role playing of various rele-
vant scenarios (Linehan, 1993), and by increas-
ing awareness of and mentalization about dis-
ruptive interpersonal relations in which affect
regulation is problematic (Bateman & Fonagy,
2006). By focusing on the emotion arousing
events in the interaction between client and
therapist, an object relations approach fosters
reappraisal of perceptions of self and other
(Clarkin et al., 2006) in the sometimes emotion-
ally charged interaction between therapist and
client.
With more modulated emotional responses,
the treatment can focus on dysfunctional inter-
personal patterns. Patients with PD are dis-
turbed in relating to others in a cooperative,
satisfying, and productive way. These difficul-
ties are central in reducing patients’ satisfaction
in attaching to others in friendly and intimate
ways, and in interfering with work and profes-
sional success and productivity. The individual
with PD has an interpersonal style that is coun-
terproductive, that is, that gets one into conflict
with others and/or isolation. Why does this
seemingly counterproductive behavior con-
tinue, and what interaction processes are main-
taining it? In everyday interaction, the patient is
not usually given the opportunity to examine
relationship interaction. Others react to the be-
havior of the client with PD, and the perceptions
of both parties are usually not articulated or
shared. Without self-examination and self-
reflection, the patient go into a habitual, over-
learned pattern of interacting that defends his or
her self-esteem despite the interaction disrup-
tions. One possibility is that the individual is
unaware of his impact on others. He may lack
awareness when others are offended. Or he may
misinterpret the reactions of others, that is, see-
ing them as problems that the other has. This
inability of typical, daily interactions to lead to
self-correction in interpersonal conflicts and
distortions is precisely why the unique qualities
of a therapeutic interaction are needed.
Given patients’ selective attention to details
and need to present self in a positive light, the
information provided by the patient to the ther-
apist about interpersonal problems is of variable
accuracy. The patient’s narrative about current
interpersonal relations can be supplemented by
careful evaluation of how he or she relates to the
therapist, not in one moment, but in identifiable
patterns of interaction. Patients are sometimes
unaware of how they appear to others, how they
impact on others, and how their interaction
styles lead to their own difficulties. The extent
to which PD patients recognize their own con-
tributions to their interpersonal difficulties var-
ies from patient to patient, and from time to
time in the same patient. It is with those patients
who are poor at recognizing their troubling in-
teractions with others that dialogue with the
therapist are most informative.
The term interpersonal functioning covers a
wide range of activity, from intimate sexual
relations, to intimate friendships, to social rela-
tions, to work and task-oriented relations, to
instrumental relations, such as negotiating at the
counter in a food market. Relevant here are the
types of relationship deficits that patients bring
to therapy, and the ones that most interfere with
patients’ quality of life. For patients with severe
PDs, their relationships may be so isolated or
conflicted that they have not functioned in a
career or work setting. This kind of disability
seriously interferes with patients’ ability to be
independent and self-sustaining, and seriously
reduces quality of life. At the other end of the
spectrum, there are patients with less severe
PDs who are functional and quite successful in
work and profession, and who have friendships,
but who do not achieve a satisfying intimate
relationship in which love and sexuality are
combined. It is along this continuum of inter-
personal relations and the competencies re-
quired that one could think of modules of treat-
ment for these conditions.
Setting the treatment frame (Clarkin et al.,
2006) and explaining the responsibilities of both
participants is a crucial first step in constructing a
context and atmosphere in which the patient can
examine without fear or embarrassment or rejec-
tion his or her interpersonal behavior, attitudes,
and feelings. Patients’ interpersonal behavior can
be examined as it unfolds with others in their
current life context, and/or in their immediate be-
havior with the therapist. Most probably, thera-
9INTEGRATED TREATMENT OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
pists of various persuasions use material from
both situations to deepen patients’ self-under-
standing. It seems to be a common approach to
focus on current relationships rather than on tem-
porally distant ones. Patients, of course, may com-
ment on what they see as the origins or history of
their patterns in relating, but it is the focus on
current relationships that provides the opportunity
for a wider behavioral repertoire with new ways of
relating.
Maladaptive interpersonal patterns are enacted
both inside and outside therapy, thus giving the
therapist the opportunity to understand and ex-
plore the etiology and maintenance of these dis-
turbed interpersonal patterns with the client in the
present moment. Pincus and colleagues (Cain &
Pincus, in press; Pincus, 2005; Pincus & Hop-
wood, 2012) have articulated a treatment ap-
proach that integrates contemporary interpersonal
theory with an object relations-based understand-
ing of personality structure (Clarkin et al., 2006).
The underlying premise is that interpersonal situ-
ations occur not only between self and other but
also in the mind via mental representations. Fol-
lowing Kernberg’s (1975, 1984) object relations
theory, these internalizations often consist of a
self-representation, an other-representation, and a
linking affect. Thus, treatment can proceed via an
articulation of the internalizations of self and other
using a sequence of clarifications, confrontations,
and well-timed interpretations of current interac-
tions (Clarkin et al., 2006) to identify, challenge,
and ultimately understand the etiology and main-
tenance of maladaptive interpersonal patterns,
thereby, leading to increased interpersonal aware-
ness and social learning.
Exploration of interpersonal relations very
quickly and seamlessly leads into the patient’s
perception of self. Guiding the patient to a review
of self-narrative and the gaps in it is an important
approach to the improvement of the patient’s self-
concept and self-functioning (Dimaggio et al.,
2012; Dimaggio, Popolo, Carcione, & Salvatore,
in press). Self-functioning can be parsed into at
least five different conceptualizations: self as the
total person, self as personality, self as experienc-
ing subject, self as beliefs about oneself, and,
finally, self as an executive agent. In the realm of
personality pathology, negative beliefs and feel-
ings about self, including low self-esteem, lack of
self-efficacy, and a grandiose, exaggerated sense
of self-importance, are major areas of concern and
therapeutic intervention.
These common principles to approach inter-
personal difficulties can be specified as follows:
1. Setting a frame for treatment so that the
patient can anticipate examination of inter-
personal behavior without seeing it as criti-
cism or an attack.
2. Building a therapeutic alliance with the ob-
serving part of the patient. In this way, the
therapist becomes an ally to the patient in
correcting his or her interpersonal behavior.
3. Ruptures in the relationship alliance be-
tween the client and the therapist should be
expected, and should be seen as an opportu-
nity for examining the client’s understand-
ing of how the therapist is viewing and re-
lating to him or her.
4. The therapist attitude of therapeutic neutral-
ity. The patient will, at times, see the thera-
pist as entering into and contributing to a
conflicted relationship with the patient. To
examine these situations, the therapist is
aided by being neutral, that is, taking the
position of an outside observer not involved
in the conflict and taking an observing
stance.
5. Timing. It is a common assumption among
experienced clinicians that the timing of the
attempt by the therapist to reflect back to the
client a view of his or her interpersonal
behavior is crucial to the client’s receptivity
to the message, which could be experienced
as emotional arousing, critical, and destabi-
lizing.
6. There are many therapeutic approaches to
using the relationship that emerges between
client and therapist to explore the client’s
difficulties in relating to others. These ap-
proaches can be conceived along a contin-
uum from attention to overt interpersonal
behavior, both defective and new prosocial
behaviors, to internal cognitive�affective
units that represent self and other.
Research Relevant to an Integrated
Modular Approach
The modular approach assumes that different
domains of functioning will change at different
rates of time during the treatment. We (Lenzen-
weger, Clarkin, Yeomans, Kernberg, & Levy,
2008) have found that three different domains of
functioning change at different rates across three
10 CLARKIN, CAIN, AND LIVESLEY
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
treatment approaches (i.e., transference-focused
psychotherapy, dialectical behavior therapy, and a
supportive treatment) for clients with BPD. Em-
bedded in this finding is not only an identification
of domains relevant to borderline patients, but also
the utility of measuring domains multiple times in
a treatment in order to understand the rate of
change of a particular domain. It would be a
tremendous advance if clinical treatment research-
ers could agree on crucial domains of dysfunction
in PD patients, and use the same instruments to
measure rates of change in these domains in var-
ious treatments.
A second type of study that would further in-
tegration is the design used by Weisz et al. (2012)
in which modules from differently empirically
supported treatments were combined in different
ways tailored to the individual in the treatment of
preadolescents for symptoms and conduct prob-
lems. This tailored approach was found superior to
an empirically supported treatment alone.
Conclusion
It is paramount with PD patients, who by
definition have difficulties in interpersonal rela-
tions, that the therapist be constantly attentive to
the ongoing nature of the relationship with the
client. Treatment modules will not work with-
out the context of a productive relationship. The
careful attention to the relationship will prevent
premature dropout. The client’s belief that
change is possible is central to treatment suc-
cess. Often, clients with PD are motivated for
relief from symptoms and discomfort, but only
with some relief and a sense that treatment
might work does one begin to actually believe
that change was possible. It seems clear that the
therapist must have a vision of possible change,
and only gradually can patients begin to adopt
that vision and related motivation. In addition,
clients’ ability to go beyond their usual reactive
mode of relating to their environment must be
transformed slowly into a curiosity about and
interest in reflecting on their own experiences
and how the experiences guide their behavior.
An attempt at delivering an integrated treat-
ment to clients with PD does not come without
difficulties. Although articles like this one can
suggest a framework for considering and apply-
ing an integrated approach, its value lies in the
perceptiveness and talent of the individual cli-
nician. Integration is a somewhat unique pro-
cess in each therapist�client pair.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnos-
tic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th
Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric
Association.
Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2006). Mentalization-
based treatment for borderline personality disor-
der. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198570905
.001.0001
Cain, N. M., & Pincus, A. L. (in press). Treating
maladaptive interpersonal signatures. In J. Lives-
ley, G. Dimaggio, & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.), An inte-
grated modular approach to the treatment of the
personality disorders. New York: Guilford Press.
Clarkin, J. F. (2013). The search for critical dimen-
sions of personality pathology to inform diagnostic
assessment and treatment planning: A commentary
on Hopwood et al. Journal of Personality Disor-
ders, 27, 303–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi
.2013.27.3.303
Clarkin, J. F., Yeomans, F. E., & Kernberg, O. F.
(2006). Psychotherapy for borderline disorder:
Focusing on object relations. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Publishing.
Craddock, N. (2013). Genome-wide association stud-
ies: What a psychiatrist needs to know. Advances
in Psychiatric Treatment, 19, 82– 88. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1192/apt.bp.110.007906
Dimaggio, G., Popolo, R., Carcione, A., & Salvatore,
G. (in press). Improving metacognition by access-
ing autobiographical narratives. In W. J. Livesley,
G. Dimaggio, & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.), Integrated
modular treatment for personality disorder. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dimaggio, G., Salvatore, G., Fiore, D., Carcione, A.,
Nicolò, G., & Semerari, A. (2012). General Prin-
ciples for treating personality disorder with a
prominent inhibitedness trait: Towards an opera-
tionalizing integrated technique. Journal of Per-
sonality Disorders, 26, 63– 83. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1521/pedi.2012.26.1.63
Hengartner, M., Müller, M., Rodgers, S., Rössler,
W., & Ajdacic-Gross, V. (2014). Interpersonal
functioning deficits in association with DSM-IV
personality disorder dimensions. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49, 317–325.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00127-013-0707-x
Hilsenroth, M. J., & Cromer, T. D. (2007). Clinician
interventions related to alliance during the initial
interview and psychological assessment. Psycho-
therapy: Theory, Research, Practice, 44, 205–218.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.44.2.205
11INTEGRATED TREATMENT OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198570905.001.0001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198570905.001.0001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2013.27.3.303
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2013.27.3.303
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.110.007906
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.110.007906
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.1.63
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.1.63
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00127-013-0707-x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.44.2.205
Hyman, S. E. (2011). Diagnosis of mental disorders
in light of modern genetics. In D. Regier, W.
Narrow, E. Kuhl, & D. Kupfer (Eds.), The concep-
tual evolution of DSM-5 (pp. 3–18). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and
pathological narcissism. New York, NY: Jason
Aaronson.
Kernberg, O. F. (1984). Severe personality disorders:
Psychotherapeutic strategies. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Lenzenweger, M. F., & Clarkin, J. F. (Eds.). (2005).
Major theories of personality disorder (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lenzenweger, M. F., Clarkin, J. F., Yeomans, F. E.,
Kernberg, O. F., & Levy, K. N. (2008). Refining
the borderline personality disorder phenotype
through finite mixture modeling: Implications for
classification. Journal of Personality Disorders,
22, 313–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008
.22.4.313
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive�behavioral treat-
ment of borderline personality disorder. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Livesley, J., Dimaggio, G., & Clarkin, J. F. (Eds.). (in
press). An integrated modular approach to the
treatment of the personality disorders. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2008). Toward a unified
theory of personality: Integrating dispositions and
processing dynamics within the cognitive�affec-
tive processing system. In O. P. John, R. W. Rob-
ins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of person-
ality: Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 208 –241).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in psy-
choanalysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012). Emotion regulation and
psychopathology: The role of gender. Annual Re-
view of Clinical Psychology, 8, 161–187. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143109
Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). What
works for whom: Tailoring psychotherapy to the
person. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 127–
132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20764
Pincus, A. L. (2005). A contemporary integrative
interpersonal theory of personality disorders. In
M. F. Lenzenweger & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.), Major
theories of personality disorder (2nd ed., pp. 282–
331). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pincus, A. L., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). A contemporary
interpersonal model of personality pathology and per-
sonality disorder. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), Oxford
handbook of personality disorders (pp. 372–398).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735013.013
.0018
Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000). Negotiating the
therapeutic alliance: A relational treatment guide.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Sanislow, C. A., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K. J., Kozak,
M. J., Garvey, M. A., Heinssen, R. K., . . . Cuth-
bert, B. N. (2010). Developing constructs for psy-
chopathology research: Research domain criteria.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 631– 639.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020909
Stricker, G. (2010). Psychotherapy Integration.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation.
Trull, T. J. (2006). Dimensional models of personal-
ity disorder. In T. A. Widiger, E. Simonsen, P. J.
Sirovatka, & D. Regier (Eds.), Dimensional mod-
els of personality disorders: Refining the research
agenda for DSM-V (pp. 171–188). Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Verheul, R., Andrea, H., Berghout, C. C., Dolan, C.,
Busschbach, J. J., van der Kroft, P. J., . . . Fonagy,
P. (2008). Severity Indices of Personality Prob-
lems (SIPP-118): Development, factor structure,
reliability, and validity. Psychological Assessment,
20, 23–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20
.1.23
Weisz, J. R., Chorpita, B. F., Palinkas, L. A., Schoe-
nwald, S. K., Miranda, J., Bearman, S. K., . . .
Gibbons, R. D. (2012). Testing standard and mod-
ular designs for psychotherapy treating depression,
anxiety, and conduct problems in youth: A ran-
domized effectiveness trial. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 69, 274 –282. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.147
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1989). Conceptions
of personality disorders and dimensions of person-
ality. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 305–316.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.4.305
Received February 19, 2014
Accepted February 24, 2014 �
12 CLARKIN, CAIN, AND LIVESLEY
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.4.313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.4.313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143109
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20764
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735013.013.0018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735013.013.0018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735013.013.0018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020909
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.1.23
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.1.23
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.4.305
An Integrated Approach to Treatment of Patients With Personality Disorders
Why Consider an Integrated Approach to Treatment?
What Is Integration?
Different Approaches to Psychotherapy Integration
An Integrated Modular Approach
Domains of Pathology in Clients With PDs
Treatment Modules
General Treatment Module
Treatment Modules for Specific Domains and Their Sequencing
Research Relevant to an Integrated Modular Approach
Conclusion
References
Pathological Personality Traits Can Capture DSM–IV Personality
Disorder Types
Joshua D. Miller and Lauren R. Few
University of Georgia
Donald R. Lynam
Purdue University
James MacKillop
University of Georgia and Brown University
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) includes an alter-
native diagnostic approach to the assessment of personality disorders (PDs) in Section III with the aim
of stimulating further research. Diagnosis of a PD using this approach is predicated on the presence of
personality impairment and pathological personality traits. The types of traits present (e.g., callousness
vs. emotional lability) are used to derive DSM–IV PD scores. Concerns have been raised, however, that
such a trait-based approach will yield PD constructs that differ substantially from those generated using
the approaches articulated in previous iterations of the DSM. We empirically examined this issue in a
sample of 109 adults who were currently receiving mental health treatment. More specifically, we
examined the correlations between interview-based PD scores derived from DSM–IV to DSM-5 PD trait
counts, and tested them in relation to the 30 specific facets of the five-factor model, as well as
internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Overall, the DSM–IV PD scores and DSM-5 PD trait counts
correlated significantly with one another (Mr � .63), demonstrated similar patterns of interrelations
among the PDs, and manifested highly similar patterns of correlations with general personality traits and
symptoms of psychopathology. These results indicate that the DSM-5 PD trait counts specified in the
alternative DSM-5 PD diagnostic approach capture the same constructs as those measured using the more
traditional DSM–IV diagnostic system.
Keywords: DSM-5, personality disorder, assessment, personality traits
A host of problems are associated with personality disorders
(PDs) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-
ders, Fourth Edition (DSM–IV), including a lack of adequate
coverage, widespread comorbidity, and difficulty distinguishing
normality from abnormality (Clark, 2007; Widiger & Trull, 2007).
In response to these problems, the DSM-5 Personality and Person-
ality Disorder Work Group (DSM-5 PPD Work Group; American
Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) proposed a diagnostic sys-
tem that differed radically from previous iterations. The two cen-
tral components of this PD proposal are the assessment of self and
interpersonal functioning, and the use of pathological traits to
describe six DSM–IV types (i.e., schizotypal, antisocial, bor-
derline [BPD], narcissistic, avoidant, and obsessive�compul-
sive [OCPD]). For example, in this proposal, the DSM-5 narcis-
sistic PD would be diagnosed if an individual manifested self and
identity impairment and elevated scores on the traits of grandiosity
and attention seeking. The proposal also called for this system to
describe PDs that are not covered by these “types,” including four
DSM–IV PDs that were to be eliminated (i.e., paranoid, schizoid,
histrionic, and dependent), using a PD�trait specified diagnosis.
The pathological traits proposed for use in DSM-5 were derived
from a new dimensional model of personality pathology compris-
ing five higher order domains and 25 lower order traits that is
thought to be an extension of the five-factor model (FFM) of
personality (APA, 2013).
This proposal by the DSM-5 PPD Work Group was met with
substantial criticism on a host of issues, including the decision to
delete certain DSM–IV PDs (Bornstein, 2011), the mixing of
dimensional and typal systems (Livesley, 2012), and the overall
complexity of the proposal that led to concerns about its clinical
utility (Shedler et al., 2010). In the current study, we addressed
specific criticisms of the use of traits to assess PDs. For instance,
Gunderson (2010), chair of the DSM–IV PD Work Group, ex-
pressed significant concerns with the proposal for the diagnosis of
BPD, suggesting that the “trait definition proposed for BPD . . . is
not empirically based and is completely divorced from clinical
concepts and literature” (p. 699). Even trait advocates such as
Livesley (2012) argued against use of traits to capture DSM–IV PD
constructs, suggesting “these diagnoses differ from their DSM–IV
equivalents so substantially that they should be considered new
diagnostic constructs” (p. 84). Due in part to the vocal opposition
toward this diagnostic approach, the DSM-5 PPD Work Group
This article was published Online First February 10, 2014.
Joshua D. Miller and Lauren R. Few, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Georgia; Donald R. Lynam, Department of Psychological Sci-
ences, Purdue University; and James MacKillop, Department of Psychol-
ogy, University of Georgia, and Department of Behavioral and Social
Sciences, Brown University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joshua D.
Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, 125 Baldwin
Street, Athens, GA 30602-3013. E-mail: jdmiller@uga.edu
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment © 2014 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 6, No. 1, 32– 40 1949-2715/15/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/per0000064
32
mailto:jdmiller@uga.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000064
proposal was included in Section III of DSM-5 to encourage
further study, while the official DSM-5 PD diagnoses are made
using the diagnostic approach articulated in DSM–IV.
Use of pathological traits in the diagnosis of PDs is neither as
radical nor as exploratory as suggested by critics. A sizable
literature exists on this topic, mostly from the perspective of the
FFM, which has suggested that general traits can be used to
conceptualize and assess PDs (see Miller, 2012, for a review).
Within this approach (e.g., Miller, Bagby, Pilkonis, Reynolds,
& Lynam, 2005), an individual can be scored on a given
DSM–IV PD on the basis of a summation (or count) of scores on
a smaller number of relevant FFM traits. Research from this
perspective has demonstrated that FFM PD trait count scores
correlated significantly with DSM–IV PDs, create personality
profiles that are in line with those created by more traditional
DSM–IV PD measures, and account for unique variance in
indices of functioning, above and beyond that explained by
DSM–IV PD constructs (e.g., Miller et al., 2010). In addition,
specific to Gunderson’s concerns, FFM trait approaches to the
scoring of BPD have demonstrated substantial success in rec-
reating its nomological network (Miller, Morse, Nolf, Stepp, &
Pilkonis, 2012; Trull et al., 2003).
Few studies exist, however, addressing the success of this
count approach using the novel trait model proposed for
DSM-5. Yalch, Thomas, and Hopwood (2012) compared the
criterion validity of the DSM-5 trait count approach, a prototype
matching approach (described in the initial DSM-5 PD proposal,
but rejected early in the process), and a DSM–IV symptom-
based approach for BPD and antisocial personality disorder in
a sample of undergraduates. The trait approach manifested good
convergent validity with the other approaches and superior
criterion-related validity in relation to measures of functioning.
Similarly, Samuel et al. (2013) examined the relations between
DSM-5 PD trait counts and DSM–IV PDs using self-report data
collected from a large undergraduate sample; they found that
DSM-5 trait counts correlated significantly with DSM–IV PDs
(Mdnr � .61) and reproduced the patterns of comorbidity found
among DSM–IV PDs.
In the current study, we tested the validity of the PD trait
count portion of the diagnostic approach for the PDs articulated
in Section III of the DSM-5 PD by examining the correlations
between DSM-5 PD trait counts and DSM–IV PDs (now the
official PD diagnostic system in DSM-5 as well) and testing
whether DSM-5 PD trait counts yield personality and psycho-
pathology profiles that are consistent with those created by
DSM–IV PDs. Ours is the first study to address these issues in
a clinical sample and using DSM–IV PD symptoms and DSM-5
PD traits that were rated by research personnel after a semi-
structured interview. We predicted that DSM-5 PD counts
would exhibit (a) substantial correlations with traditional
DSM–IV PD scores, (b) similar personality profiles as the
DSM–IV PDs using the 30 facets of the FFM as the criteria, and
(c) similar correlations with internalizing and externalizing
symptoms. We also hypothesized that DSM-5 PD trait counts
would successfully reproduce the pattern of intercorrelations
found among DSM–IV PDs, and that this pattern of overlap
would be due in large part to the use of overlapping traits.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants included 109 community adults (70% women; 90%
White, 6% African American; Mage � 35.8 years, SD � 12.6) who
were currently receiving psychological or psychiatric treatment.
To participate, individuals had to be currently receiving psycho-
logical care, between the ages of 18 and 65, have a minimum of a
Grade 8 education, use a computer 3� days a week (to ensure that
they could complete computerized assessments), and not be expe-
riencing psychotic symptoms. Individuals were administered a
semistructured interview for DSM–IV PD symptoms and com-
pleted a number of self-report measures across a single 3– 4 hr
protocol. Interviews were conducted by graduate students enrolled
in a doctoral program in clinical psychology. Individuals were
compensated $30 for participation. Institutional review board ap-
proval was obtained for all aspects of the study.
Measures
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Axis II Person-
ality Disorders. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV
Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer,
Williams, & Benjamin, 1997) is a semistructured interview that
assesses the 10 DSM–IV PDs. Each symptom is scored using a
1�3 rating. Symptom ratings were completed by the interviewer
(i.e., a doctoral student in clinical psychology) and a second rating
was completed (n � 103) via a review of the videotaped interview
by trained graduate students who were blind to the primary ratings.
Interrater reliability of the SCID-II ratings ranged from .79�.92
and alphas for the DSM–IV PD scores ranged from .68�.84. In
terms of diagnoses, 37.6% of the sample met criteria for at least
one PD; the most common diagnoses were avoidant (19.3%) and
BPD (11%).
DSM-5 personality disorder traits. On completion of the
SCID-II, the interviewer rated each participant on the 25 DSM-5
PD traits (e.g., callousness) using the official clinician rating guide
provided by the DSM-5 PPD Work Group, which uses single-item
ratings for each trait (0�3). Secondary ratings were generated after
a review of the SCID-II interview. Interrater reliabilities for these
25 traits ranged from .12 (perseveration) to .83 (impulsivity), with
a median of .55. DSM-5 PD traits counts were created by summing
the ratings for each PD using the traits specified by the DSM-5
PPD Work Group (e.g., DSM-5 narcissistic PD traits � attention
seeking � grandiosity). Despite not being included in Section III
of DSM-5, we included the DSM-5 PPD Work Group’s previous
specifications for scoring the four PDs specified for deletion on the
basis of the new DSM-5 trait model (paranoid � suspiciousness �
hostility � unusual beliefs and experiences � intimacy avoidance;
schizoid � withdrawal � intimacy avoidance � restricted affec-
tivity � anhedonia; histrionic � emotional lability � manipula-
tiveness � attention seeking; dependent � submissiveness �
anxiousness � separation insecurity).
Revised NEO Personality Inventory. The Revised NEO Per-
sonality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-
item self-report measure of the FFM. Each of the five domains is
comprised of six more specific facets. Alphas for the facets ranged
from .58�.90, with a median of .81. Analyses with the NEO PI-R
were limited to 106 participants.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
33DSM-5 PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAITS
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information.
The short forms of the Emotional Distress � Anxiety and Emo-
tional Distress � Depression domains of the Patient-Reported
Outcomes Measurement Information System (Pilkonis et al., 2011)
are brief self-report questionnaires (i.e., seven and eight items for
the Anxiety and Depression scales, respectively) that assess the
experience of a particular emotion over the past 7 days. Both
variables were normally distributed (Anxiety: M � 22.15, SD �
6.50, � � .94; Depression: M � 22.20, SD � 9.17, � � .97). The
two scores correlated highly with one another (r � .81) and, thus,
were combined to create a single internalizing variable.
Brief Symptom Inventory. The Brief Symptom Inventory
(Derogatis, 1993) is a 53-item self-report inventory designed to
assess psychiatric symptoms, and it provides scores on nine symp-
tom scales (e.g., Somatization, Obsessive�Compulsive, Depres-
sion, Hostility, Phobic Anxiety, and Psychoticism), as well as a
Global Severity Index (GSI). The GSI, which we used here (� �
.97), is computed by generating an average of all 53 items.
Crime and Analogous Behavior scale. The Crime and Anal-
ogous Behavior scale (Miller & Lynam, 2003) is a self-report
inventory that assesses externalizing behaviors such as substance
use and antisocial behavior. A lifetime antisocial behavior variable
(10 items) was created by giving participants 1 point for every
relevant act endorsed (e.g., stealing; � � .77; M � 2.31, SD �
2.16). A lifetime drug use variable (eight items) was created by
giving participants 1 point for every drug endorsed (e.g., cocaine;
� � .79; M � 2.88, SD � 2.21).
Data Analytic Plan
First, the convergent and discriminant validity of DSM-5 PD
trait counts were examined in relation to dimensional DSM–IV PD
scores.1 Second, we tested whether the comorbidity manifested by
DSM-5 PD trait counts reproduces that found among the DSM–IV
PDs and whether use of overlapping traits among DSM-5 PD trait
counts explained the comorbidity among DSM-5 PD trait counts.
Third, the two sets of DSM PD scores— dimensional DSM–IV PD
scores and DSM-5 PD trait counts—were correlated with the 30
personality traits from the NEO PI-R. We then examined the
overall similarity of these sets of FFM profiles by calculating
second-order intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) using
double-entry q-correlations, which are more stringent than Pearson
correlations as measures of agreement (i.e., this method measures
absolute rather than relative agreement). Fourth, we examined
these two sets of PD scores in relation to internalizing and exter-
nalizing symptoms; because there were too few criteria to compute
similarity indices for these results, we tested whether the correla-
tions for the two PD scoring approaches differed significantly
(tests of dependent rs).
Results
Convergence and Discriminant Validity Correlations
of DSM–IV PDs Scores and DSM-5 PD Trait Counts
We first examined the convergent correlations between DSM–IV
PDs scores and DSM-5 PD trait counts (see Table 1), which ranged
from .43 (OCPD) to .81 (BPD, antisocial), with a mean of .63. In
seven of 10 instances, DSM-5 PD trait counts manifested their
largest correlation (or tied for the largest in the case of the
histrionic PD count) with their respective DSM–IV PD counterpart.
In two of the other three cases, paranoid and narcissistic, the
DSM-5 PD trait count manifested a slightly larger correlation with
a “neighbor” PD from the same cluster (e.g., the DSM-5 paranoid
PD trait count manifested a slightly larger correlation with the
DSM–IV schizotypal PD than with the DSM–IV paranoid PD).
Comorbidity Within DSM–IV PD Scores and DSM-5
PD Trait Counts
Next, we examined the interrelations of the PD scores individ-
ually within each paradigm (i.e., separately for DSM–IV PD and
DSM-5 PD trait counts; see Table 2) and tested whether DSM–IV
PDs and DSM-5 PD trait counts produced similar patterns of
relations by calculating a second-order correlation (i.e., we corre-
lated the correlations presented above and below the diagonal in
Table 2). As expected, the two sets of PDs manifested similar
patterns of relations among the sets of PD scores (r � .78).
Although some may question why one would want to duplicate
problematic patterns of comorbidity, we would note that comor-
bidity is expected within the dimensional trait approach to PDs to
the extent that PDs share overlapping traits. As a demonstration of
this, we examined the degree to which trait overlap could account
for the observed comorbidity. The number of shared traits between
the individual DSM-5 PD counts (see Table 2) was substantially
correlated with the pattern of comorbidity found for the DSM-5 PD
trait counts, r � .76.
Profile Similarity of DSM–IV and DSM-5 PD Scores in
Relation to the FFM
Next, we examined the similarity of the correlations generated
by the two sets of DSM PD scores with the 30 facets of the FFM
by calculating ICCs between the two sets of correlations. As can be
seen in Tables 3–5, the ICCs ranged from .59 (OCPD) to .98
(BPD), with a mean of .90; all ICCs were statistically significant.
For illustrative purposes, we review the findings for the PDs that
manifested the strongest and weakest convergence: BPD and
OCPD. The two BPD scores manifested nearly identical sets of
correlations with the 30 traits of the FFM, with both approaches
yielding moderate to strong positive correlations with facets of
neuroticism (e.g., angry hostility, depression), and generally small
to moderate negative correlations with facets of agreeableness
(e.g., straightforwardness, compliance) and conscientiousness
(e.g., competence, deliberation). The correlations for OCPD were
the least similar; the DSM-5 OCPD trait count manifested larger
negative correlations with the facets of extraversion (e.g., warmth,
gregariousness, positive emotions) and agreeableness (e.g., trust,
altruism).
1 To reduce concerns that common method variance might have inflated
convergent correlations or similarity scores, different raters were used for
DSM-5 trait scores (primary rater) and DSM–IV PD scores (secondary
rater), except for six cases in which only the primary rater’s scores were
available for both sets of scores. The results were virtually identical (mean
correlation between DSM–IV PD scores and DSM-5 trait counts � .61;
mean intraclass correlation coefficient between trait profiles generated by
DSM–IV PD scores and DSM-5 trait counts � .88) if the raters are reversed
(i.e., DSM–IV PDs rated by primary rater; DSM-5 traits rated by secondary
rater).
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
34 MILLER, FEW, LYNAM, AND MACKILLOP
Relations Manifested by DSM–IV PDs and DSM-5
Trait Counts With Internalizing and
Externalizing Symptoms
Next, we compared the correlations manifested by DSM–IV PD
scores and DSM-5 PD trait counts in relation to internalizing and
externalizing symptoms (see Table 6). Across 40 comparisons,
only four correlations differed significantly such that both DSM-5
histrionic and dependent PD trait counts were more strongly re-
lated to symptoms of anxiety and depression than were their
DSM–IV counterparts.
Discussion
The diagnostic approach articulated for the PDs in Section III of
DSM-5 represents a substantial departure from previous DSM
systems. Not surprisingly, this approach met with considerable
resistance in relation to almost every aspect (see special issues in
the Journal of Personality Assessment, Journal of Personality
Disorders, and Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment). In the current study, we focused specifically on con-
cerns that dimensional traits cannot successfully recreate DSM–IV
PDs (e.g., Gunderson, 2010; Livesley, 2012). Given the existence
of a significant body of previous research that has demonstrated
the success of such an approach using general personality traits
(see Miller, 2012 for a review), we hypothesized that DSM-5
pathological trait counts would prove successful at capturing
DSM–IV PD constructs measured using the traditional symptom-
based approach.
In the current study, DSM-5 PD trait counts demonstrated sub-
stantial convergence with DSM–IV PDs. The convergent validity
Table 1
Convergent and Discriminant Validity Correlations Among the DSM-5 PD Trait Counts and DSM–IV PDs
DSM-5 PD trait counts
PAR SZD SCT ASPD BPD HIS NAR AVD DEP OCPD Mdn disc. r
DSM–IV PDs
PAR .59�� .25�� .44�� .45�� .51�� .38�� .15 .31�� .34�� .21� .34
SZD .46�� .67�� .48�� .10 .16 �.04 �.10 .64�� .19 .43� .19
SCT .60�� .22� .56�� .43�� .55�� .40�� .16 .29�� .41�� .17 .40
ASPD .32�� .01 .19� .81�� .61�� .58�� .32�� .05 .27�� �.18 .27
BPD .49�� .14 .32�� .68�� .81�� .60�� .20� .26�� .58�� .04 .32
HIS .15 �.22� .02 .49�� .33�� .60�� .58�� �.22� .06 �.16 .06
NAR .24� �.08 .13 .42�� .32�� .46�� .53�� �.05 .00 �.04 .13
AVD .24� .46�� .29�� .07 .29�� .00 �.25�� .55�� .57�� .40�� .29
DEP .19 .25�� .19 .23� .42�� .18 �.12 .35�� .59�� .13 .19
OCPD .13 .17 .12 �.06 .08 .00 �.04 .19� .21� .43�� .12
Mdn disc. r .24 .17 .19 .42 .33 .38 .15 .26 .27 .13
Note. Bold correlations represent the convergent validity correlations. Disc. r � discriminant validity correlation; DSM � Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders; PD � personality disorder; PAR � paranoid PD; SZD � schizoid PD; SCT � schizotypal PD; ASPD � antisocial PD;
BPD � borderline PD; HIS � histrionic PD; NAR � narcissistic PD; AVD � avoidant PD; DEP � dependent PD; OCPD � obsessive�compulsive PD.
� p � .05. �� p � .01.
Table 2
Comorbidity Within the DSM-5 PD Trait Counts and DSM–IV PDs
PDs
PAR SZD SCT ASPD BPD HIS NAR AVD DEP OCPD
PAR — .55 (1) .84 (2) .51 (1) .64 (1) .44 (0) .31 (0) .61 (1) .49 (0) .48 (1)
SZD .29 — .70 (2) .03 (0) .18 (0) �.13 (0) �.13 (0) .94 (3) .36 (0) .74 (2)
SCT .52 .33 — .27 (0) .45 (0) .19 (0) .13 (0) .72 (1) .50 (0) .57 (1)
ASPD .38 .11 .33 — .81 (3) .81 (1) .58 (0) .05 (0) .27 (0) �.07 (0)
BPD .55 .10 .46 .66 — .77 (1) .40 (0) .32 (1) .66 (2) .09 (0)
HIS .18 �.19 .13 .48 .38 — .71 (1) �.07 (0) .29 (0) �.12 (0)
NAR .27 .05 .20 .33 .29 .42 — �.15 (0) .00 (0) �.01 (0)
AVD .35 .33 .32 .15 .38 �.16 �.11 — .58 (1) .69 (1)
DEP .36 .21 .37 .30 .51 .04 �.01 .66 — .32 (0)
OCPD .20 .11 .12 �.04 .18 .09 .08 .32 .18 —
r .78�
Note. Discriminant correlations among the DSM–IV PDs are listed below the diagonal; discriminant correlations among the DSM-5 PD trait counts are
listed above the diagonal. Numbers in parentheses above the diagonal represent the number of shared traits used in the DSM-5 Section III PD counts (e.g.,
three of the same traits are used in the diagnosis of ASPD and BPD). DSM � Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; PD � personality
disorder; PAR � paranoid PD; SZD � schizoid PD; SCT � schizotypal PD; ASPD � antisocial PD; BPD � borderline PD; HIS � histrionic PD; NAR �
narcissistic PD; AVD � avoidant PD; DEP � dependent PD; OCPD � obsessive�compulsive PD.
� p � .01.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
35DSM-5 PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAITS
coefficients found for the DSM-5 PD trait count with DSM–IV PD
scores (Mr � .63) are nearly identical to those found by Samuel et
al. (2013; Mdnconvergent r � .61) who studied this issue using
self-report data collected in an undergraduate study and are similar
to the convergence found when using different PD measures
designed to assess the exact same version of DSM constructs (see
Miller, Few, & Widiger, 2012, for a review). It is interesting that
two of the three DSM-5 PD trait counts that demonstrated more
moderate convergence with their DSM–IV PD counterparts— his-
trionic and narcissistic—are diagnosed using the fewest traits (i.e.,
2–3 traits).2 It is possible that these DSM-5 PDs could be made to
be more convergent with their DSM–IV counterparts if additional
traits were employed. Decisions as to which traits to add could be
made on the basis of an accumulating empirical literature or expert
ratings (Samuel, Lynam, Widiger, & Ball, 2012). For instance,
Samuel et al. collected expert ratings of DSM-5 traits thought to be
most prototypical of DSM–IV PDs. Based on these data, narcis-
sistic PD should also include the traits of callousness and manip-
ulation. Studies are necessary to see which traits, including both
those included and those not included in the DSM-5 trait model,
are necessary to have a sufficiently comprehensive taxonomy of
personality pathology.
Convergence can also be judged via the similarity of the pattern
of correlates generated by these scores. In the current study, we
examined convergence by comparing the FFM trait profiles gen-
erated by the two diagnostic approaches to one another and com-
paring the correlations of these two approaches with internalizing
and externalizing symptoms. In general, DSM-5 PD trait counts
yielded FFM personality profiles that were closely aligned with
those manifested by DSM–IV PDs (MrICC � .90), suggesting that
DSM-5 PD counts, like general trait PD counts (e.g., Miller et al.,
2010), can effectively capture DSM–IV PD constructs.3 DSM–IV
PDs and DSM-5 trait counts also manifested similar sets of corre-
2 In fact, the number of traits used per DSM-5 PD trait count correlated
significantly with the level of convergent validity (i.e., correlation between
DSM–IV PDs and DSM-5 trait counts) manifested in the current study (r �
.69).
3 The success of DSM-5 PD trait counts is not limited to the use of
clinician-rated traits. Using self-reported traits from the Personality Inven-
tory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol,
2012) to generate DSM-5 PD trait counts in this same data set, we found
convergent correlations with the interview-based ratings of DSM–IV PDs
that ranged from .46 (histrionic) to .69 (BPD), with a median of .56.
Similarly, the profile similarities of the PID-based DSM-5 PD trait counts
with the interview-based DSM–IV PDs with regard to the 30 FFM facets
ranged from .47 (histrionic) to .96 (paranoid), with a median rICC of .89. In
sum, DSM-5 PD trait counts assess constructs similar to their DSM–IV
counterparts whether or not they are assessed using interviewers’ ratings or
self-reports.
Table 3
DSM–IV and Five Cluster A Personality Disorders in Relation to the Five-Factor Model
NEO PI-R traits
Paranoid Schizoid Schizotypal
DSM–IV DSM-5 TC DSM–IV DSM-5 TC DSM–IV DSM-5 TC
Anxiety .29 .21 .16 .27 .16 .14
Angry hostility .61 .49 .23 .16 .33 .28
Depression .30 .36 .27 .36 .31 .28
Self-consciousness .17 .21 .16 .37 .05 .23
Impulsiveness .29 .19 �.02 �.02 .26 .14
Vulnerability .32 .27 .24 .30 .29 .23
Warmth �.28 �.39 �.60 �.73 �.17 �.40
Gregariousness �.28 �.34 �.50 �.57 �.12 �.34
Assertiveness �.01 �.09 �.36 �.45 �.10 �.23
Activity �.02 �.13 �.24 �.45 .05 �.17
Excitement seeking .05 �.02 �.23 �.17 .13 .01
Positive emotions �.22 �.30 �.50 �.60 �.06 �.28
Fantasy �.07 �.24 �.23 �.13 �.10 �.09
Aesthetics �.03 �.09 �.25 �.15 �.10 �.03
Feelings �.02 �.09 �.35 �.36 �.02 �.10
Actions �.23 �.36 �.34 �.32 �.25 �.26
Ideas �.10 �.18 �.27 �.11 �.10 �.05
Values �.20 �.37 �.24 �.21 �.22 �.27
Trust �.57 �.59 �.35 �.46 �.41 �.52
Straightforwardness �.43 �.33 �.16 �.06 �.31 �.25
Altruism �.33 �.35 �.31 �.34 �.20 �.31
Compliance �.47 �.38 �.04 .03 �.31 �.16
Modesty �.11 �.05 .03 .13 �.12 .04
Tendermindedness �.18 �.22 �.27 �.20 �.06 �.17
Competence �.26 �.29 �.23 �.27 �.34 �.29
Order .04 .03 .06 �.09 .10 .02
Dutifulness �.21 �.14 �.10 �.03 �.21 �.15
Achievement striving �.03 �.05 �.12 �.20 �.15 �.11
Self-discipline .01 .03 �.01 �.10 .02 �.04
Deliberation �.24 �.23 �.06 .07 �.32 �.13
Profile match .95� .92� .82�
Note. Profile matches based on double-entry q-correlation, which is an intraclass correlation. DSM �
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; TC � trait count.
� p � .01.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
36 MILLER, FEW, LYNAM, AND MACKILLOP
lations with internalizing and externalizing symptoms such that, of
40 comparisons, only four differed significantly (two of which
occurred in relation to histrionic PD). In general, the PDs expected
to be most strongly related to internalizing symptoms (e.g.,
avoidant, dependent, BPD) were most strongly related to symp-
toms of depression and anxiety, while the PDs expected to be
related to externalizing behaviors (e.g., antisocial, BPD) were most
strongly related to antisocial behavior and substance use (Kotov et
al., 2011; Røysamb et al., 2011).
Despite the general convergence of these two sets of PDs scores
with the criterion variables, DSM-5 trait counts for OCPD and
histrionic PD exhibited more limited profile agreement with the
FFM traits, albeit still fairly large and significant (rICC � .59 and
.71, respectively). The DSM-5 OCPD trait count includes the traits
of rigid perfectionism, perseveration, intimacy avoidance, and
restricted affectivity. The inclusion of the latter two traits, which
were not in the original OCPD count proposed by the DSM-5 PPD
Work Group, are likely partially responsible for the smaller degree
of convergence found with its DSM–IV counterpart because such
traits were not included in DSM–IV OCPD criteria (although these
traits are discussed to some extent in the accompanying text). In
the current data, the inclusion of these two additional traits served
to reduce the DSM-5 OCPD trait count’s correlation with DSM–IV
OCPD scores (two traits: r � .56; four traits: r � .43) and its
similarity with regard to its general trait profile (two traits: rICC �
.78; four traits: rICC � .59). Although traits similar to intimacy
avoidance and restricted affectivity are included in other trait-
based assessments of OCPD (e.g., Samuel, Riddell, Lynam, Miller,
& Widiger, 2012), this representation in the DSM-5 OCPD trait
count constitutes some degree of shift away from the construct as
it was assessed in DSM–IV (and now in the main text of DSM-5).
The lack of strong convergence between OCPD scores from
DSM–IV and the DSM-5 OCPD trait count is also likely due in part
to an omission of traits that are central to this disorder. Using the
original 37-trait model proposed by the DSM-5 PPD Work Group,
experts (see Samuel, Lynam, et al., 2012) rated four traits as being
particularly central to OCPD: perseveration, perfectionism, rigid-
ity, and orderliness. Three of these four traits—all but persevera-
tion—were combined, however, into a single trait of rigid perfec-
tionism in the final 25-trait model included in Section III of
DSM-5. We suspect that inclusion of a broader array of relevant
traits would strengthen the DSM-5 trait model’s ability to success-
fully capture OCPD.
Similar divergences were found between DSM–IV and the
DSM-5 histrionic PD trait count such that the latter manifested
larger positive correlations with facets of neuroticism and inter-
Table 4
DSM–IV and Five Cluster B Personality Disorders in Relation to the Five-Factor Model
NEO PI-R traits
Antisocial Borderline Histrionic Narcissistic
DSM–IV DSM-5 TC DSM–IV DSM-5 TC DSM–IV DSM-5 TC DSM–IV DSM-5 TC
Anxiety .11 .14 .41 .39 �.10 .12 �.12 �.05
Angry hostility .28 .43 .47 .53 .18 .40 .26 .28
Depression .24 .23 .50 .50 .01 .21 �.01 �.04
Self-consciousness .17 .12 .39 .36 �.01 .06 �.01 �.12
Impulsiveness .37 .44 .47 .48 .31 .42 .24 .27
Vulnerability .19 .24 .50 .52 �.05 .18 �.01 �.10
Warmth �.10 �.13 �.19 �.21 .26 .11 �.07 .14
Gregariousness �.05 .00 �.18 �.14 .19 .08 �.10 .15
Assertiveness �.06 .13 �.12 �.11 .26 .20 .29 .38
Activity �.02 .04 �.15 �.15 .16 .17 .15 .29
Excitement seeking .18 .29 .11 .17 .23 .26 .05 .27
Positive emotions .02 .01 �.16 �.20 .31 .16 .05 .21
Fantasy .07 �.01 .06 .00 .21 .09 .24 .13
Aesthetics .04 .02 .13 .04 .24 .11 .06 .08
Feelings �.05 .01 .08 .08 .23 .18 .07 .15
Actions �.02 �.08 �.09 �.20 .19 �.07 �.02 .09
Ideas �.05 �.08 �.05 �.13 .18 �.04 .02 .00
Values �.15 �.20 �.05 �.19 �.14 �.18 �.03 �.12
Trust �.14 �.29 �.29 �.40 .09 �.16 �.09 �.08
Straightforwardness �.35 �.45 �.40 �.38 �.17 �.32 �.42 �.27
Altruism �.28 �.35 �.19 �.22 .02 �.17 �.34 �.21
Compliance �.18 �.44 �.26 �.33 �.15 �.32 �.30 �.33
Modesty �.06 �.18 .04 .00 �.24 �.21 �.41 �.36
Tendermindedness �.08 �.10 �.13 �.11 .03 �.12 �.24 �.08
Competence �.39 �.39 �.46 �.50 �.12 �.26 �.05 �.03
Order �.19 �.14 �.24 �.23 �.12 �.14 �.10 .01
Dutifulness �.50 �.48 �.47 �.44 �.20 �.36 �.19 �.12
Achievement striving �.29 �.18 �.33 �.31 .04 �.10 .07 .19
Self-discipline �.22 �.19 �.31 �.26 �.08 �.12 �.03 .02
Deliberation �.52 �.57 �.45 �.50 �.24 �.41 �.23 �.31
Profile match .93� .98� .71� .83�
Note. Profile matches based on double-entry q-correlation, which is an intraclass correlation. DSM � Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders; TC � trait count.
� p � .01.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
37DSM-5 PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAITS
nalizing symptoms, which may be due to the inclusion of the
emotional lability facet in the DSM-5 histrionic PD count (along
with manipulativeness and attention seeking). DSM-5 emotional
lability is defined as “instability of emotional experiences and
mood; emotions that are easily aroused, intense, and/or out of
proportion to events and circumstances” (APA, 2013, p. 779)—a
definition that is not entirely consistent with the emotional expe-
rience described for histrionic PD in DSM–IV. In DSM–IV, indi-
viduals with this disorder were described as having “rapidly shift-
ing and shallow emotions” and demonstrating “self-dramatization,
theatricality, and exaggerated expression of emotion” (APA, 2000,
p. 714). The DSM-5 histrionic PD trait count may overemphasize
the role of genuine negative affectivity and fail to note that these
emotional changes may be superficial and displayed in the service
of interpersonal manipulation.
We also examined the discriminant validity of DSM-5 PD trait
counts and found that, in general, DSM-5 Section III trait counts
manifested larger convergent validity correlations (Mr � .63) than
discriminant correlations (Mr � .25). There were some cases in
which a DSM-5 trait count manifested a larger discriminant cor-
relation with a DSM–IV PD other than its counterpart (e.g., DSM-5
narcissistic PD with DSM–IV histrionic), but the differences were
small in nature and were typically found with near neighbor
disorders (e.g., those from the same cluster). We also demonstrated
that the relations found among DSM-5 PD trait counts largely
reproduced the pattern of interrelations found among DSM–IV
PDs; the correlations among the two sets of correlation matrices
manifested a second-order correlation of .78. In addition, we were
able to show that the correlations among DSM-5 PD trait counts
were largely predictable by the number traits shared among the
PDs. Although the trait approach does not necessarily diminish the
issue of overlap among the PDs, it provides a simple and parsi-
monious explanation—PDs will co-occur to the extent that they
share the same or similar personality traits (e.g., Lynam & Widi-
ger, 2001).
Ultimately, the current data suggest that pathological personality
traits can be used to score DSM–IV PDs, although certain DSM-5
PD trait counts may require further modification if the goal is to
replicate perfectly their DSM–IV counterparts. These data do not,
however, speak to the broader issue of whether traits should be
used to recreate these DSM–IV PD types, because with that rec-
reation comes many of the problems that are associated with the
DSM–IV PD diagnostic approach. For instance, Clark (2007), in
discussing trait approaches like this (i.e., using the FFM), sug-
gested “the DSM diagnoses are much too flawed to warrant
emulation” and that trait approaches like the FFM have “great
Table 5
DSM–IV and 5 Cluster C Personality Disorders in Relation to the Five-Factor Model
Avoidant Dependent OCPD
NEO PI-R traits DSM–IV DSM-5 TC DSM–IV DSM-5 TC DSM–IV DSM-5 TC
Anxiety .47 .39 .42 .45 .34 .25
Angry hostility .22 .23 .24 .31 .24 .25
Depression .56 .47 .45 .50 .26 .27
Self-consciousness .59 .47 .42 .49 .23 .29
Impulsiveness .26 .03 .30 .27 .15 �.03
Vulnerability .57 .43 .56 .55 .28 .23
Warmth �.49 �.71 �.26 �.27 �.09 �.58
Gregariousness �.44 �.60 �.25 �.29 �.19 �.45
Assertiveness �.57 �.52 �.44 �.47 �.06 �.30
Activity �.37 �.48 �.22 �.31 �.04 �.30
Excitement seeking �.10 �.19 �.04 �.02 �.09 �.20
Positive emotions �.41 �.63 �.24 �.30 �.21 �.49
Fantasy .05 �.12 .05 .01 .07 �.19
Aesthetics �.17 �.11 �.09 .08 �.08 �.22
Feelings �.19 �.30 �.18 �.03 .15 �.21
Actions �.25 �.35 �.22 �.22 �.21 �.37
Ideas �.14 �.14 �.17 �.11 .08 �.15
Values �.04 �.21 �.15 �.18 �.12 �.20
Trust �.29 �.50 �.28 �.32 �.11 �.41
Straightforwardness �.12 �.06 �.19 �.15 �.10 .02
Altruism �.21 �.29 �.20 �.04 .02 �.23
Compliance .08 .05 .00 .05 �.06 �.04
Modesty .24 .18 .17 .23 .11 .10
Tendermindedness �.12 �.19 �.14 �.08 �.07 �.19
Competence �.42 �.32 �.49 �.40 �.02 �.12
Order �.17 �.10 �.19 �.14 .16 .14
Dutifulness �.29 �.04 �.39 �.20 .09 .12
Achievement striving �.44 �.26 �.45 �.39 .04 �.02
Self-discipline �.33 �.11 �.29 ��.20 �.14 �.07
Deliberation �.07 .06 �.27 �.13 .07 .21
Profile match .91� .96� .59�
Note. Profile matches based on double-entry q-correlation, which is an intraclass correlation coefficient (i.e.,
rICC). DSM � Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; TC � trait count.
� p � .01.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
38 MILLER, FEW, LYNAM, AND MACKILLOP
value in PD assessment, but it lies in the dimensions themselves
and their potential for deepening our understanding of PD traits,
not in their ability to approximate demonstrably inadequate cate-
gories” (p. 232). Similarly, Livesley (2012) noted that the DSM-5
proposal “perpetrates the myth of discrete categories of personality
disorder despite voluminous evidence to the contrary” (p. 84). We
believe, however, that these trait recreations of DSM–IV PDs may
help clinicians transition from these well-known but flawed PD
categories to the more valid yet unfamiliar dimensional trait ap-
proaches (e.g., Miller et al., 2008). Although some trait proponents
object to such a compromise (i.e., Livesley, 2012), we believe it
may be the only way that the broader mental health field will
successfully move from a typal approach to a dimensional trait
approach (cf., Tyrer, Crawford, & Mulder, 2011).
Limitations and Conclusions
The current study is the first to address the validity of these
DSM-5 PD counts using data collected from a clinical sample and
using interview-based ratings of the PD constructs (DSM–IV PDs
and/or DSM-5 traits). Despite the novelty of these data, it is
important to consider that the current findings are derived from a
relatively small sample and, thus, it will be important to replicate
these analyses in larger, more diverse samples. In addition, we
compared DSM–IV and DSM-5 PD scores to a relatively limited
number of external correlates (i.e., general personality traits, and
internalizing and externalizing symptoms), and it is possible that
results might differ in relation to other meaningful constructs (e.g.,
etiological factors, treatment utilization/satisfaction). Some of
DSM-5 traits demonstrated limited interrater reliability, which may
have attenuated the relations manifested by DSM-5 PD trait counts
that included these traits (e.g., perseveration, which feeds into the
creation of the DSM-5 OCPD trait count) with their DSM–IV
counterparts. In the current study, DSM-5 trait ratings were derived
from information gleaned from an interview designed for the
assessment of traditional DSM–IV PDs (e.g., BPD), which may
have affected the interrater reliability and validity of these trait
ratings, particularly for traits that may not be as well covered by an
assessment of DSM–IV PDs. This methodological limitation was
unavoidable, however, because a specific semistructured interview
for the Section III DSM-5 traits had not been developed at the time
of this study. We would note that the general reliability and
validity of these ratings, despite this issue, may be cause for
optimism in that these traits can be relatively successfully assessed
by existing measures and will likely perform even more robustly
when assessed using an interview designed specifically for this
purpose.
In sum, the current results suggest that DSM-5 PD trait counts
yield constructs that are substantively similar to their DSM–IV
counterparts. This should allay concerns that trait-based ap-
proaches will fundamentally alter the nature of the PD constructs.
With tensions high among researchers with regard to the DSM-5
Section III PD proposal, we believe it will prove critically impor-
tant that decisions regarding the diagnostic approach used for the
PDs in future iterations of the DSM and criticisms of these deci-
sions be empirically driven.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bornstein, R. F. (2011). Reconceptualizing personality pathology in
DSM-5. Limitations in evidence for eliminating dependent personality
disorder and other DSM–IV syndromes. Journal of Personality Disor-
ders, 25, 235–247. doi:10.1521/pedi.2011.25.2.235
Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder:
Perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 227–257. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904
.190200
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventory. Administration, Scoring,
and Procedures Manual (4th Ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Com-
puter Systems.
First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin,
L. S. (1997). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Axis II Disor-
ders (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Table 6
Relations Between DSM–IV and Five Personality Disorder
Scores and Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms
DSM PDs
Internalizing symptoms Externalizing behaviors
Depression-
anxiety
Global
severity ASB
Substance
use
Paranoid
DSM–IV .36 .56 .29 .12
DSM-5 TC .43 .56 .37 .30
Schizoid
DSM–IV .32 .31 .08 .16
DSM-5 TC .44 .42 .07 .17
Schizotypal
DSM–IV .33 .50 .39 .35
DSM-5 TC .40 .49 .28 .30
Antisocial
DSM–IV .22 .39 .57 .49
DSM-5 TC .26 .45 .55 .51
Borderline
DSM–IV .49 .63 .34 .32
DSM-5 TC .51 .68 .40 .41
Histrionic
DSM–IV �.10a .02a .20 .16
DSM-5 TC .21b .37b .31 .25
Narcissistic
DSM–IV .06 .11 .14 .28
DSM-5 TC �.02 .05 .18 .22
Avoidant
DSM–IV .46 .49 .12 .09
DSM-5 TC .57 .55 .04 .15
Dependent
DSM–IV .36a .42a .16 .06
DSM-5 TC .55b .61b .20 .16
OCPD
DSM–IV .14 .21 �.15 �.04
DSM-5 TC .30 .28 �.04 .01
Note. Within each personality disorder and outcome, correlations with
different superscripts (a, b) differ significantly across the two DSM per-
sonality disorder scoring methodologies (p � .05). DSM � Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; ASB � antisocial behavior; TC �
trait count; OCPD � obsessive�compulsive personality disorder.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
39DSM-5 PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAITS
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.2.235
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190200
Gunderson, J. G. (2010). Revising the borderline diagnosis for DSM-V: An
alternative proposal. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 694 –708.
doi:10.1521/pedi.2010.24.6.694
Kotov, R., Ruggero, C., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Yuan, Q., & Zimmer-
man, M. (2011). New dimensions in the quantitative classification of
mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68, 1003–1011. doi:
10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.107
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. V.
(2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and
inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879 –1890. doi:
10.1017/S0033291711002674
Livesley, J. (2012). Tradition versus empiricism in the current DSM-5
proposal for revising the classification of personality disorders. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 22, 81–90. doi:10.1002/cbm.1826
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to
represent the DSM–IV personality disorders: An expert consensus ap-
proach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401– 412. doi:10.1037/
0021-843X.110.3.401
Miller, J. D. (2012). Five-factor model personality disorder prototypes: A
review of their development, validity, and comparison with alternative
approaches. Journal of Personality, 80, 1565–1591. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2012.00773.x
Miller, J. D., Bagby, R. M., Pilkonis, P. A., Reynolds, S. K., & Lynam,
D. R. (2005). A simplified technique for scoring the DSM–IV personality
disorders with the five-factor model. Assessment, 12, 404 – 415. doi:
10.1177/1073191105280987
Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). Assessment of person-
ality disorders and related traits: Bridging DSM–IV–TR and DSM-5. In
T. A. Widiger (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality disorders (pp.
108 –140). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199735013.013.0006
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Psychopathy and the five-factor
model of personality: A replication and extension. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 81, 168 –178. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8102_08
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Rolland, J. P., De Fruyt, F., Reynolds, S. K.,
Pham-Scottez, A., . . . Bagby, R. M. (2008). Scoring the DSM-IV
Personality Disorders using the Five-Factor Model: Development and
validation of normative scores for North American, French and Dutch-
Flemish samples. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 433– 450.
Miller, J. D., Maples, J., Few, L. R., Morse, J. Q., Yaggi, K. E., & Pilkonis,
P. A. (2010). Using clinician-rated five-factor model data to score the
DSM–IV personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92,
296 –305. doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.481984
Miller, J. D., Morse, J. Q., Nolf, K., Stepp, S. D., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2012).
Can DSM–IV borderline personality disorder be diagnosed via dimensional
personality traits: Implications for the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 944 –950. doi:10.1037/a0027410
Pilkonis, P. A., Choi, S. W., Reise, S. P., Stover, A. M., Riley, W. T., &
Cella, D., on behalf of the PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2011). Item
banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Out-
comes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): Depression, anxiety,
and anger. Assessment, 18, 263–283. doi:10.1177/1073191111411667
Røysamb, E., Tambs, K., Ørstavik, R. E., Torgersen, S., Kendler, K. S.,
Neale, M. C., . . . Reichborn-Kjennerud, T. (2011). The joint structure of
DSM–IV Axis I and Axis II disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
120, 198 –209. doi:10.1037/a0021660
Samuel, D. B., Hopwood, C. J., Krueger, R. F., Thomas, K. M., &
Ruggero, C. (2013). Comparing methods for scoring personality disorder
types using maladaptive traits in DSM-5. Assessment, 20, 353–361.
doi:10.1177/1073191113486182
Samuel, D. B., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Ball, S. A. (2012). An
expert consensus approach to relating the proposed DSM-5 types and
traits. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 1–16.
doi:10.1037/a0023787
Samuel, D. B., Riddell, A. D. B., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Widiger,
T. A. (2012). A five-factor measure of obsessive-compulsive personality
traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 456 – 465. doi:10.1080/
00223891.2012.677885
Shedler, J., Beck, A., Fonagy, P., Gabbard, G. O., Gunderson, J., Kernberg,
O., . . . Westen, D. (2010). Personality disorders in DSM-5. The
American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 1026 –1028. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp
.2010.10050746
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., Lynam, D. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003).
Borderline personality disorder from the perspective of general person-
ality functioning. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 193–202. doi:
10.1037/0021-843X.112.2.193
Tyrer, P., Crawford, M., & Mulder, R., on behalf of the ICD-11 Working
Group for the Revision of Classification of Personality Disorders.
(2011). Reclassifying personality disorders. The Lancet, 377, 1814 –
1815. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61926-5
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of
personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psy-
chologist, 62, 71– 83. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.71
Yalch, M. M., Thomas, K. M., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). The validity of
trait, symptom, and prototype approaches for describing borderline and
antisocial personality disorders. Personality and Mental Health, 6, 207–
216. doi:10.1002/pmh.1184
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
40 MILLER, FEW, LYNAM, AND MACKILLOP
http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2010.24.6.694
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1826
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00773.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00773.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191105280987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191105280987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735013.013.0006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735013.013.0006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8102_08
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.481984
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027410
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191111411667
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021660
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486182
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023787
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.677885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.677885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.10050746
http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.10050746
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.2.193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.2.193
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736%2810%2961926-5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.71
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1184
Pathological Personality Traits Can Capture DSM–IV Personality Disorder Types
Method
Participants and Procedure
Measures
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Axis II Personality Disorders
DSM-5 personality disorder traits
Revised NEO Personality Inventory
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information
Brief Symptom Inventory
Crime and Analogous Behavior scale
Data Analytic Plan
Results
Convergence and Discriminant Validity Correlations of DSM–IV PDs Scores and DSM-5 PD Trai …
Comorbidity Within DSM–IV PD Scores and DSM-5 PD Trait Counts
Profile Similarity of DSM–IV and DSM-5 PD Scores in Relation to the FFM
Relations Manifested by DSM–IV PDs and DSM-5 Trait Counts With Internalizing and External …
Discussion
Limitations and Conclusions
References