Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 377

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Personality Assessment in DSM-5: Empirical Support for Rating Severity, Style, and Traits

Open access
Hopwood, Christopher J., Malone, Johanna C., Ansell, Emily B., Sanislow, Charles A., Grilo, Carlos M., McGlashan, Thomas H, Pinto, Anthony, Markowitz, John C., Shea, M. Tracie, Skodol, Andrew E., Gunderson, John G., Zanarini, Mary C., Morey, Leslie C.·2011·Journal of Personality Disorders
DOI 10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.305
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite a general consensus that dimensional models are superior to the categorical representations of personality disorders in DSM-IV, proposals for how to depict personality pathology dimensions vary substantially. One important question involves how to separate clinical severity from the style of expression through which personality pathology manifests. This study empirically distinguished stylistic elements of personality pathology symptoms from the overall severity of personality disorder in a large, longitudinally assessed clinical sample (N = 605). Data suggest that generalized severity is the most important single predictor of current and prospective dysfunction, but that stylistic elements also indicate specific areas of difficulty. Normative personality traits tend to relate to the general propensity for personality pathology, but not stylistic elements of personality disorders. Overall, findings support a three-stage diagnostic strategy involving a global rating of personality disorder severity, ratings of parsimonious and discriminant valid stylistic elements of personality disorder, and ratings of normative personality traits.

Overview

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 · 10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.305

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 377

Metadata

Authors
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., Gunderson, J. G., Zanarini, M. C., & Morey, L. C.
Venue
Journal of Personality Disorders
Publisher
Guilford Publications
Published
2011-06
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
305-320
ISSN
0885-579X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1521/pedi.2011.25.3.305
OpenAlex
W2099120380
Cited by
377
References
48
FWCI
21.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.