Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample.

Open access
Few, Lauren R., Miller, Joshua D., Rothbaum, Alex O., Meller, Suzanne, Maples, Jessica, Terry, Douglas P., Collins, Brittany, MacKillop, James·2013·Journal of Abnormal Psychology

Abstract

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), includes a novel approach to the diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs) in Section III, to stimulate further research with the possibility that this proposal will be included more formally in future DSM iterations. This study provides the 1st test of this proposal in a clinical sample by simultaneously examining its 2 primary components: a system for rating personality impairment and a newly developed dimensional model of pathological personality traits. Participants were community adults currently receiving outpatient mental health treatment who completed a semistructured interview for DSM-IV PDs and were then rated in terms of personality impairment and pathological traits. Data on the pathological traits were also collected through self-reports using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Both sets of trait scores were compared with self-report measures of general personality traits, internalizing symptoms, and externalizing behaviors. Interrater reliabilities for the clinicians' ratings of impairment and the pathological traits were fair. The impairment ratings manifested substantial correlations with symptoms of depression and anxiety, DSM-5 PDs, and DSM-5 pathological traits. The clinician and self-reported personality trait scores demonstrated good convergence with one another, both accounted for substantial variance in DSM-IV PD constructs, and both manifested expected relations with the external criteria. The traits but not the impairment ratings demonstrated incremental validity in the prediction of the DSM-IV PDs. Overall, these results support the general validity of several of the components of this new PD diagnostic system and point to areas that may require further modification.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0034878

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Cited by

See all 269

Metadata

Authors
Few, L. R., Miller, J. D., Rothbaum, A. O., Meller, S., Maples, J., Terry, D. P., Collins, B., & MacKillop, J.
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Published
2013-11
Volume
122
Issue
4
Pages
1057-1069
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
OpenAlex
W2057807736
Cited by
269
References
56
FWCI
19.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0034878
The paper
Few, L. R., Miller, J. D., Rothbaum, A. O., Meller, S., Maples, J., Terry, D. P., Collins, B., & MacKillop, J. (2013). Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034878

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.