Cited by 17Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyMental Health and Psychiatry

The DSM-5 Personality Disorder Proposal and Future Directions in the Diagnostic Classification of Personality Disorder

Livesley, John·2013·Psychopathology

Abstract

Background: The compilation of DSM-5 presented a substantial opportunity to develop a coherent, evidence-based classification of personality disorder. The irremediable problems with DSM-IV are widely recognized, the field seemed ready for change, and the data and methods for constructing a scientific classification are readily available. Rather than seize this opportunity, DSM-5 advanced an incoherent proposal lacking in evidential support and too poorly organized for clinical use. Methods: This article examines the problems with the proposal based on a consideration of the basic requirements of a satisfactory classification. It is suggested that an adequate system should have an explicit and coherent conceptual structure, be based on the best available scientific evidence, possess clinical utility, and be as parsimonious as possible. Results: The DSM-5 proposal fails to meet these criteria. Problems with the product and process suggest the need for a radical reconsideration of how personality disorders are classified and how classifications are compiled. Conclusions: The article proposes that greater emphasis be placed on developing a classification that provides the diagnostic information clinicians need to treat personality disorder and that future classifications should be constructed through an explicit process that is open to public scrutiny.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000348866

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Another DSM-5 work group member noted the reversal was likely due to the power of the lobby for including NPD, as no new evidence was presented to support the reversal.

    “Another DSM-5 work group member noted that this reversal was likely due to the “power of the lobby for including narcissistic personality disorder” (Livesley 2013, p. 213)-as no new evidence was presented to support this reversal.”

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

  • 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 Livesley 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Livesley, J.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Livesley, John
Venue
Psychopathology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2013
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
207-216
ISSN
  • 0254-4962 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-033X
OpenAlex
W1971826925
Cited by
17
References
5
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychopathology (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, classification criteria, DSM-IV, conceptual structure, clinical utility, parsimony, psychiatric classification, classification process
MeSH terms
Concept Formation, Humans, Models, Psychological, Personality Disorders, Evidence-Based Medicine, 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