A comprehensive comparison of the ICD-11 and DSM–5 section III personality disorder models.
Abstract
The ICD-11 model of personality disorder consists of a level of severity, 5 trait domains, and a borderline pattern qualifier. Level of severity is assessed by the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD; Olajide et al., 2018), the trait model by the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD; Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018), and the borderline pattern qualifier by the Borderline Pattern Specifier inventory (BPS; Oltmanns & Widiger, 2019). The DSM-5 Section III Alternative Model of Personality Disorder includes a level of personality functioning and the five-domain trait model. These two components are assessed by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS; Morey, 2017) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). Components of each model have been related to one another, but no study has yet considered all of the components for both models within one study. The current study considers the convergent, discriminant, and structural validity of the relationship of the LPFS and PID-5 with the SASPD, PiCD, and BPS. Also included were multiple measures of borderline personality disorder to determine if the BPS obtains incremental validity in accounting for borderline personality disorder variance above and beyond the trait models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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?
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 [99]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 61 · Cited by 93
- Authors
- McCabe, G. A., & Widiger, T. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Kentucky (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2020-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 72-84
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- OpenAlex
- W2978088992
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 14.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (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, ICD-11, DSM-5 Section III, PID-5, borderline personality disorder, convergent validity, discriminant validity, incremental validity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Borderline Personality Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Personality, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
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