Cited by 159Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyMental Health and Psychiatry

Opinions of Personality Disorder Experts Regarding The DSM-IV Personality Disorders Classification System

Bernstein, David P., Iscan, Cuneyt, Maser, Jack·2007·Journal of Personality Disorders

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To survey the opinions of personality disorder (PD) experts on possible revisions in the classification system for PDs in the DSM-V. METHOD: Four hundred members of two international associations, the Association for Research on Personality Disorders, and the International Society for the Study of Personality Disorders, were asked to take a 78-item web survey. RESULTS: Of the experts who completed the survey (N = 96), 74% felt that the DSM-IV's categorical system of PD diagnosis should be replaced. Eighty percent felt that PDs are better conceived of as personality dimensions or illness spectra, than as categories. The most frequently endorsed alternative system for PDs was a mixed system of categories and dimensions. Most experts preferred the PDs to remain on Axis II. Only 31.3% wanted the term, "Borderline Personality Disorder," retained in the DSM-V. CONCLUSIONS: A clear majority of the PD experts were dissatisfied with the current diagnostic system for PDs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/pedi.2007.21.5.536

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The term 'personality disorder not otherwise specified' is frequently used, often more than any specific category, marking dissatisfaction with the existing classification.

    “the frequent use of the term”

    From Personality disorder: a new global perspective (2010) · cites this paper as [42]

  • A recent survey reported that three quarters of personality disorder experts thought the current DSM-IV system should be replaced.

    “A recent survey reported that three quarters of personality disorder experts thought the current DSM-IV system should be replaced”

    From Personality disorder: a new global perspective (2010) · cites this paper as [42]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bernstein, D. P., Iscan, C., & Maser, J.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Venue
Journal of Personality Disorders
Published
2007-10
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
536-551
ISSN
0885-579X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1990256683
Cited by
159
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 13
FWCI
8.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality Disorders (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-IV, DSM-V, diagnostic classification, borderline personality disorder, Axis II, expert opinion, classification system revision
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Borderline Personality Disorder, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Disorders, Psychiatry, Psychology, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Societies, Medical, Reproducibility of Results, 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