Cited by 33Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMental Health Research Topics

Revealing what is distinct by recognising what is common: distinguishing between complex PTSD and Borderline Personality Disorder symptoms using bifactor modelling

Open access
Frost, Rachel, Murphy, Jamie, Hyland, Philip, Shevlin, Mark, Ben-Ezra, Menachem, Hansen, Maj, Armour, Cherie, McCarthy, Angela +2 more·2020·European Journal of Psychotraumatology

Abstract

Background: Despite concerns of conceptual similarity, increasing evidence supports the discriminant validity of Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). However, all studies to date have assumed a categorical model of psychopathology. In contrast, dimensional models of psychopathology, such as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology model (i.e. HiTOP model), recognise shared vulnerability across supposedly discrete disorders. Accounting for shared vulnerability between CPTSD and BPD symptoms may help to better reveal what is unique about these constructs.Objective: To identify the distinct and shared features of CPTSD and BPD via the application of dimensional modelling procedures.Method: Confirmatory bifactor and confirmatory factor analysis were employed to identify the optimal latent structure of CPTSD and BPD symptoms amongst a convenience sample of Israeli adults (N = 617). Additionally, structural equation modelling was used to identify risk factors associated with these constructs.Results: The latent structure of CPTSD and BPD symptoms was best explained by a bifactor model including one ‘general’ factor (i.e. vulnerability to all symptoms) and three ‘specific’ correlated factors (i.e. vulnerability to PTSD, DSO, and BPD symptoms, respectively). CPTSD symptoms were more readily distinguished from the general factor whereas BPD symptoms were not as easily distinguished from the general factor. CPTSD symptoms reflecting a negative self-concept and BPD symptoms reflecting an alternating self-concept were the most distinctive features of CPTSD and BPD relative to the general factor, respectively. Most of the risk factors were associated with the general vulnerability factor, consistent with the predictions of dimensional models of psychopathology regarding shared risk across supposedly distinct psychiatric constructs.Conclusion: Consistent with a dimensional model of psychopathology, CPTSD and BPD shared a common latent structure but were still distinguishable. CPTSD and BPD symptoms may be most effectively distinguished based on the phenomenology of self-concept symptoms.

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 · 10.1080/20008198.2020.1836864

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., … Poulton, R. (2014). The p factor: One general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2(2), 119– 137. 25360393 PMC4209412

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frost, R., Murphy, J., Hyland, P., Shevlin, M., Ben-Ezra, M., Hansen, M., Armour, C., McCarthy, A., Cunningham, T., & McDonagh, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • Ulster University, Derry-Londonderry Campus (GB)
  • National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
  • The Department of Social Work, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • School of Psychology, Queens University, Belfast, Northern Ireland
  • Clinical Services Department, Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, Dublin, Ireland
  • Probation Board for Northern Ireland (GB)
Corresponding author
Frost, Rachel
Venue
European Journal of Psychotraumatology
Published
2020-12-18
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
1836864-1836864
ISSN
2000-8066 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3106267882
Cited by
33
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Psychotraumatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
psychotraumanetwork.com) under the (722523)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
complex PTSD, borderline personality disorder, bifactor model, dimensional models of psychopathology, shared vulnerability, discriminant validity, Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, self-concept, dissociation, risk factors

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