The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 118 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Personality Disorders in DSM-5
Abstract
A substantive revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) last occurred in 1994; therefore, the mental health field should anticipate significant changes to the classification of mental disorders in the fifth edition. Since DSM-5 Work Groups have recently proposed revisions for the major diagnostic classes of mental disorders, an article on the current status of the personality disorders (PDs) is timely. This article reviews scientific principles that have influenced the development of proposed changes for the assessment and diagnosis of personality psychopathology in DSM-5, presents the proposed model as of the summer of 2011, summarizes rationales for the changes, and discusses critiques of the model. Scientific principles were articulated for DSM-5 more than a decade ago; their application to the process has not been straightforward, however. Work Group members have labored to improve the DSM-5 approach to personality and PDs to make the classification more valid and more clinically useful. The current model continues to be a work in progress.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“The chair of the work group said that it was reinstated due, in part, to the comments posted on the official website “bemoaning its deletion as a specific PD” (Skodol 2012, p. 331).”
From Controversies in Narcissism (2017) · cites this paper as Skodol 2012
In the citing paper
“Both the DSM-5 (Section III) (1) and the ICD-11 (13) recommend using a hybrid model of diagnosis, which combines the categorical and dimensional models, because this combination has the strongest predictive validity (9, 14).”
From Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Progress in Understanding and Treatment (2022) · cites this paper as [14]
Citations
Cites
Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 · Cited by 6,567
Self-referential processing in our brain—A meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self
Northoff, G., Heinzel, A., de Greck, M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H., & Panksepp, J. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.002 · Cited by 2,792
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x · Cited by 2,361
Personality and the Prediction of Consequential Outcomes
Ozer, D. J., & Benet‐Martínez, V. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127 · Cited by 2,307
Establishment of Diagnostic Validity in Psychiatric Illness: Its Application to Schizophrenia
ROBINS, E., & GUZE, S. B. (1970) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.126.7.983 · Cited by 2,243
Public health significance of neuroticism
Lahey, B. B. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0015309 · Cited by 1,901
Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality
Donaldson, Z. R., & Young, L. J. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1158668 · Cited by 1,645
The maturing architecture of the brain's default network
Fair, D. A., Cohen, A. L., Dosenbach, N. U. F., Church, J. A., Miezin, F. M., Barch, D. M., Raichle, M. E., Petersen, S. E., & Schlaggar, B. L. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0800376105 · Cited by 1,314
Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses.
Kendell, R., & Jablensky, A. (2003) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.4 · Cited by 1,294
Reich, J. W., Zautra, A., & Hall, J. S. (2010) · Cited by 1,291
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Costa PT, 1992, Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual
- First MB, 1997, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (SCID-II)
- Livesley WJ, 2000, Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology
- Rounsaville BJ, 2002, A Research Agenda for DSM-V, 1
- Skodol AE, 2009, Essentials of Personality Disorders, 381
- Tellegen A, 1994, Personality Measures: Development and Evaluation, 1, 133
- Torgersen S, 2009, Essentials of Personality Disorders, 83
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC
Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-126 · Cited by 3,053
DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, FIFTH EDITION
Abbas, A., & Aminoroaia, M. (2013) · Cited by 1,478
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2017) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244 · Cited by 572
“The chair of the work group said that it was reinstated due, in part, to the comments posted on the official website “bemoaning its deletion as a specific PD” (Skodol 2012, p. 331).”
BackgroundPersonality Assessment in DSM-5: Empirical Support for Rating Severity, Style, and Traits
Hopwood, C. J., Malone, J. C., Ansell, E. B., Sanislow, C. A., Grilo, C. M., McGlashan, T. H., Pinto, A., Markowitz, J. C., Shea, M. T., Skodol, A. E., et al. (2011) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.305 · Cited by 377
Self-citationLuyten, P., & Blatt, S. J. (2013) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0032243 · Cited by 362
Metadata
- Authors
- Skodol, A. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Corresponding author
- Skodol, Andrew E.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2012-04-27
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 317-344
- ISSN
- 1548-5943 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-5951
- OpenAlex
- W2124226322
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 118
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 5.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Keywords
- personality disorders, DSM-5, diagnostic classification, personality pathology, diagnostic criteria, classification validity, psychiatric diagnosis, personality disorder assessment
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Models, Psychological, Personality Disorders, 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
