Cited by 124Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health and PsychiatryPersonality Traits and Psychology

Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era.

Krueger, Robert F.·2013·Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

Abstract

The process of constructing the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) has concluded, with the manual published in May 2013. In this article, I review the evolution of personality disorders (PDs) in DSM-5 from my perspective as a participating workgroup member, and as an observer of the DSM-5 construction process. I emphasize well-documented shortcomings of the fourth edition of the DSM (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), the diversity of potential changes to PD conceptualization and diagnosis that were proposed during the construction of DSM-5, and the final outcome, which consists of reproducing DSM-IV PD criteria in Section II of DSM-5 (diagnostic criteria and codes), while also printing a complete parallel PD system in Section III (emerging measures and models), with the idea of moving elements of the Section III material to Section II as DSM evolves (e.g., in DSM-5.1). Perhaps the PD field is too fractious to arrive at a consensus approach at this juncture, but, in addition, the current situation shows how the PD field is arguably the most forward-thinking area in contemporary psychopathology. This is because many PD scholars do not accept the inadequate polythetic-categorical approach to psychopathology classification of DSM-IV (which, owing to conservative political forces, also frames Section II of DSM-5). PD research is therefore at the vanguard in conceptualizing, studying, and treating psychopathology because it is not slavishly tethered to the DSM, and its approach to defining mental disorder through political processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/per0000028

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • These decisions were widely criticized by some members of the workgroup and researchers in the field.

    “these decisions were widely criticized by some members of the workgroup (Livesley 2013, Krueger 2013) and researchers in the field (Blashfield & Reynolds 2012, Miller et al. 2010b, Widiger 2011).”

    From Controversies in Narcissism (2017) · cites this paper as Krueger 2013

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krueger, R. F.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Krueger, Robert F.
Venue
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment
Published
2013
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
355-362
ISSN
  • 1949-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1949-2723
OpenAlex
W2314573223
Cited by
124
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5
FWCI
15.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality Disorders Theory Research and Treatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
personality disorders, DSM-5, DSM-IV, psychiatric classification, diagnostic criteria, psychopathology classification
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Psychological, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychiatry, Psychopathology, Societies, Medical, Advisory Committees, Consensus, Dissent and Disputes, 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