The DSM-5 Personality Disorder Proposal and Future Directions in the Diagnostic Classification of Personality Disorder
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
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?
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
Personality Disorders in DSM-5
Skodol, A. E. (2012) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143131 · Cited by 360 · see citing works
Krueger, R. F., & Eaton, N. R. (2010) · Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment · doi:10.1037/a0018990 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Bernstein, D. P., Iscan, C., & Maser, J. (2007) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.2007.21.5.536 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Temperament and the structure of personality disorder symptoms
MULDER, R. T., & JOYCE, P. R. (1997) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291796004114 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
An Invisible College View of the<i>DSM-5</i>Personality Disorder Classification
Blashfield, R. K., & Reynolds, S. M. (2012) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.821 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
- 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