CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyMental Health Research Topics

Evaluating the assessment of the ICD-11 personality disorder diagnostic system.

Open access
Oltmanns, Joshua R., Widiger, Thomas A.·2019·Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1037/pas0000693PMC PMC6488396

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Proposed for the ICD-11 is a dimensional model of personality disorder that, if approved, would be a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of personality disorder. The proposal consists of a general severity rating, 5 maladaptive personality trait domains, and a borderline pattern qualifier. The general severity rating can be assessed by the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD), the trait domains by the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), and the borderline pattern by the Borderline Pattern Scale (BPS), which is developed in the present study. To date, no study has examined the relations among all 3 components, due in part to the absence of direct measures for each component (until recently). The current study develops and provides initial validation evidence for the BPS, and examines the relations among the BPS, SASPD, and PiCD. Also considered is their relationship with the 5-factor model of general personality as well as with 2 other measures of personality disorder severity (including the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale [LPFS]). Further, an alternative trait-based coding of the DSM-5 LPFS is examined (modeled after the ICD-11 SASPD), suggesting that its coverage of diverse maladaptivity may not be because it assesses the core of personality disorder, but rather because it has items specific to the different domains of personality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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/pas0000693

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • Substantial upticks in research activity can already be seen in some areas of ICD-11/DSM-5 divergence, such as PTSD/CPTSD, Personality Disorders, and childhood irritability/anger.

    “Indeed, substantial upticks in research activity can already be seen in some areas of ICD-11/DSM-5 divergence, such as PTSD/ CPTSD 59-61 , Personality Disorders 96-99 , and childhood irritability/anger 31,83 .”

    From An organization‐ and category‐level comparison of diagnostic requirements for mental disorders in <scp>ICD</scp> ‐11 and <scp>DSM</scp> ‐5 (2021) · cites this paper as [98]

    The Abstract identifies this as a study of the proposed ICD-11 personality-disorder system and compares it with DSM-5, so it supports the citation as an example of research in that area. The Discussion (Conclusions; page unavailable) says research on the ICD-11 proposals had been relatively limited; it does not establish a substantial uptick in research activity. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 51 · Cited by 109

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2001). Practice guidelines for the treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association. 11665545
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
  3. Bastiaansen L, De Fruyt F, Rossi G, Schotte C, & Hofmans J (2013). Personality disorder dysfunction versus traits: Structural and conceptual issues. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(4), 293– 303. 23834515
  4. Berghuis H, Kamphuis JH, & Verheul R (2014). Specific personality traits and general personality dysfunction as predictors of the presence and severity of personality disorders in a clinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 410– 416. 24111812
  5. Berghuis H, Kamphuis JH, Verheul R, Larstone R, & Livesley J (2013). The GeneralAssessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD) as an instrument for assessing the core features of personality disorders. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20, 544– 557. 22915478
  6. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, & Gosling SD (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3– 5. 26162106
  7. Chandler J, & Shapiro D (2016). Conducting clinical research using crowdsourced convenience samples. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 53– 81. 26772208
  8. Clark LA, Simms LJ, Wu KD, & Casillas A (2014). Manual for the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP-2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  9. Coolidge FL, & Merwin MM (1992). Reliability and validity of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory: A new inventory for the assessment of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59(2), 223– 238. 1432558
  10. Few LR, Miller JD, Rothbaum AO, Meller S, Maples S, Terry J, Collins B & Mackillop J (2013). Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system to personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 1057– 1069. 24364607 PMC4105005
  11. Gabel W (Chair). (September 26, 2017). Personality Disorders in ICD-11 – a panel discussion on the current state of proposal. Symposium conducted at the 15th Meeting of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Personality Disorders, Heidelberg, Germany.
  12. Hentschel AG, & Livesley WJ (2013). The General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD): Factor structure, incremental validity of self-pathology, and relations to DSM- IV personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 479– 485. 23536975
  13. Hentschel AG, & Pukrop R (2014). The essential features of personality disorder in DSM-5: the relationship between criteria A and B. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 202, 412– 418. 24727722
  14. Herpertz SC, Huprich SK, Bohus M, Chanen A, Goodman M, Mehlum L, …, & Sharp C (in press). The challenge of transforming the diagnostic system of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders. PMC5735999 28910213
  15. Kernberg OF (1984). Severe personality disorders: Psychotherapeutic strategies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  16. Klein MH, Benjamin LS, Rosenfeld R, Treece C, Husted J, & Greist JH (1993). The Wisconsin personality disorders inventory: Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Personality Disorders, 7, 285– 303.
  17. Krueger RF (2016). The future is now: Personality disorder and the ICD‐11. Personality and Mental Health, 10(2), 118– 119. 27120422
  18. Krueger RF, & Markon KE (2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477– 501. 24329179
  19. Lenzenweger MF, Clarkin JF, Kernberg OF, & Foelsch PA (2001). The Inventory of Personality Organization: psychometric properties, factorial composition, and criterion relations with affect, aggressive dyscontrol, psychosis proneness, and self-domains in a nonclinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 13, 577– 591. 11793901
  20. Maples JL, Guan L, Carter NT, & Miller JD (2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1070– 1084. 24932643
  21. Moran P, Leese M, Lee T, Walters P, Thornicroft G, & Mann A (2003). Standardised Assessment of Personality–Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS): preliminary validation of a brief screen for personality disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 228– 232. 12948996
  22. Morey LC (in press). Development and initial evaluation of a self-report form of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning scale. Psychological Assessment. doi: 10.1037/pas0000450 28240933 · DOI
  23. Mulder RT, Horwood J, Tyrer P, Carter J, & Joyce PR (2016). Validating the proposed ICD-11 domains. Personality and Mental Health, 10, 84– 95. 27120419
  24. Mulder RT, Newton-Howes G, Crawford MJ, & Tyrer PJ (2011). The central domains of personality pathology in psychiatric patients. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 364– 377. 21699397
  25. Mullins-Sweatt SN, Edmundson M, Sauer-Zavala S, Lynam DR, Miller JD, & Widiger TA (2012). Five-factor measure of borderline personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 475– 487. 22489634
  26. Mullins-Sweatt SN, Jamerson JE, Samuel SB, Olson DR, & Widiger TA (2006). Psychometric properties of an abbreviated instrument for the assessment of the five factor model. Assessment, 13, 119– 137. 16672728
  27. Olajide K, Munjiza J, Moran P, O’Connell L, Newton-Howes G, Bassett P, Gbolagade A, Ng N, Tyrer P, Mulder R, & Crawford MJ (2017). Development and psychometric properties of the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD). Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 1– 13. 28513349
  28. Oltmanns JR, & Widiger TA (2018). A self-report measure for the ICD-11 dimensional trait model proposal: The Personality Inventory for ICD-11. Psychological Assessment, 30, 154– 169. doi: 10.1037/pas0000459 28230410 PMC5930359 · DOI
  29. Oltmanns TF, & Turkheimer E (2009). Person perception and personality pathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 32– 36. 20539833 PMC2882793
  30. Rojas SR, & Widiger TA (2014). Convergent and discriminant validity of the Five Factor Form. Assessment, 2, 143– 157. 24366956
  31. Samuel DB, & Widiger TA (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326– 1342. 18708274 PMC2614445
  32. Sharp C (Discussant). (September 26, 2017). Personality Disorders in ICD-11 – a panel discussion on the current state of proposal. Symposium conducted at the 15th Meeting of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Personality Disorders, Heidelberg, Germany.
  33. Sharp C, Wright AG, Fowler JC, Frueh BC, Allen JG, Oldham J, & Clark LA (2015). The structure of personality pathology: Both general (‘g’) and specific (‘s’) factors? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 387– 398. 25730515
  34. Simms LJ, Goldberg LR, Roberts JE, Watson D, Welte J, & Rotterman JH (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: Introducing the CAT–PD project. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 380– 389. 22804677 PMC3400119
  35. Tyrer P, Crawford M, Mulder R, Blashfield R, Farnam A, Fossati A, … & Swales M (2011). A classification based on evidence is the first step to clinical utility. Personality and Mental Health, 5(4), 304– 307.
  36. Tyrer P, Crawford M, Sanatinia R, Tyrer H, Cooper S, Muller‐Pollard C, … & Guo B (2014). Preliminary studies of the ICD‐11 classification of personality disorder in practice. Personality and Mental Health, 8, 254– 263. 25200623
  37. Tyrer P, Mulder R, Kim Y-R, & Crawford MJ (in press). The development of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: an amalgam of science, pragmatism and politics. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 30601688
  38. Tyrer P, Tyrer H, Yang M, & Guo B (2016). Long-term impact of temporary and persistent personality disorder on anxiety and depressive disorders. Personality and Mental Health, 10, 76– 83. 26754031
  39. van Kampen D (2012). The 5-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT): Relationships with two lexically based instruments and the validation of the absorption scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 92– 101. 22176270
  40. Wright AG, Hopwood CJ, Skodol AE, & Morey LC (2016). Longitudinal validation of general and specific structural features of personality pathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125, 1120– 1134. 27819472 PMC5119768

Authors
Oltmanns, J. R., & Widiger, T. A.
Affiliations
University of Kentucky (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2019-05
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
674-684
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
DOI
10.1037/pas0000693
PMC
PMC6488396
OpenAlex
W2910073731
Cited by
109
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 5
FWCI
20.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute on Aging
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
ICD-11, personality disorders, borderline personality disorder, maladaptive personality traits, personality disorder severity, scale development, psychometric validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Personality Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, International Classification of Diseases

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