Sharing a Diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality: a Challenging Decision with Associated Risks and Benefits
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This study extends and supports the widespread acknowledged limitation of DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder regarding the exclusion of vulnerable features.
“First, this study extends and supports the widespread acknowledged limitation of DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder regarding the exclusion of vulnerable features (for a review of changes to dignostic criteria over time, see [74, 75]) and we acknowledge the current discussion regarding therapist decision to provide a diagnosis of NPD [76].”
From Living with pathological narcissism: a qualitative study (2020) · cites this paper as [76]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 11
- Authors
- Hersh, R. G., McCommon, B., & Golkin, E. G.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hersh, Richard G.
- Venue
- Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports
- Published
- 2019-11-07
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 133-140
- ISSN
- 2196-2979 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2983881616
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
- Keywords
- narcissistic personality disorder, narcissistic personality traits, informed consent, borderline personality disorder, patient-clinician communication, prognosis, heritability, neurobiology, evidence-based treatment, clinical decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
