CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyMental Health Research Topics

Categorical Models of Personality Disorders

Weinberg, Igor·2020·The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Disorders
DOI 10.1017/9781108333931.024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This chapter reviews and summaries current knowledge about the categorical model of personality disorders. It starts with the history of the concept from Greek philosophers and moves to the description of personality disorders in DSM-5. It then summarizes key strengths of the categorical approach. First, it provides examples of the disorder-specific concepts that help understand in depth individuals with individual disorders. Second, it reviews research findings that validate the association between personality disorders and functional impairment. Third, construct validity of each personality disorder is reviewed based on the criteria of validation of psychiatric disorders. Ability to test construct validity of each disorder is a unique feature of the categorical model. Fourth, the predictive utility of the categorical model documents that the categorical diagnosis of personality disorder predicts significant clinical and psychosocial outcomes and predicts some functional outcomes independent of the dimensional model. Fifth, clinical utility research on categorical model and its limitations is reviewed. Sixth, the chapter reviews limitations of the categorical model, such as (i) excessive diagnostic co-occurrence, (ii) phenomenological heterogeneity, (iii) arbitrary diagnostic thresholds, and (iv) inadequate coverage. The chapter offers possible resolutions to these limitations. The chapter concludes with discussion of possible future directions, including combining categorical and dimensional approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/9781108333931.024

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Both the DSM-5 (Section III) and the ICD-11 recommend using a hybrid model of diagnosis, which combines the categorical and dimensional models, because this combination has the strongest predictive validity.

    “Both the DSM-5 (Section III) (1) and the ICD-11 (13) recommend using a hybrid model of diagnosis, which combines the categorical and dimensional models, because this combination has the strongest predictive validity (9, 14).”

    From Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Progress in Understanding and Treatment (2022) · cites this paper as [9]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 128 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Weinberg, I.
Corresponding author
Weinberg, Igor
ORCID
Weinberg, Igor
Venue
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Disorders
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2020-02-29
Pages
120-135
DOI
10.1017/9781108333931.024
OpenAlex
W3008909453
Cited by
5
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.54
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
personality disorders, categorical models, DSM-5, construct validity, functional disability, diagnostic thresholds, dimensional models, clinical utility, predictive validity

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