ABSTRACT Objective The DSM‐5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) includes two main criteria, impairments in personality functioning (Criterion A) and the presence of maladaptive personality traits (Criterion B). The Personality Inventory for DSM‐5 (PID‐5) is the primary operationalization of the maladaptive trait framework characterized in Criterion B. This study sought to examine the temporal stability of the PID‐5 across 1‐year, as well as its concurrent and longitudinal associations with clinically relevant external criteria. We hypothesized the PID‐5 would exhibit a high degree of rank‐order stability over time, as well as positive associations with putatively negative clinical processes and negative associations with adaptive processes. Negative affectivity was expected to display a markedly consistent pattern of associations, and antagonism was expected to exhibit a more attenuated pattern. Methods Participants with heightened borderline personality features completed the PID‐5 and measures of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes, as well as psychiatric symptomology, at baseline ( N = 107; M = 30.94, SD = 7.33; 51% women) and 1‐year follow‐up ( N = 72). Rank‐order stability (Pearson's r ) and mean‐level changes (Cohen's d ) for the PID‐5 domains and facets were calculated, along with bivariate correlations with outcomes. Results Results suggest high stability in terms of rank‐order (median Pearson's r correlation of 0.74 for domains and 0.70 for facets), but small to moderate mean‐level Cohen's d changes were common ( Mdn = −0.56 for domains). Prospective associations with clinical criteria suggest domains and facets are predictive of important therapeutic change processes and outcomes in theoretically expected ways. Negative affectivity exhibited a consistent pattern of associations with outcomes (14/19 correlations > 0.30), and antagonism demonstrated the most attenuated pattern of associations (5/19 correlations > 0.30). Conclusion Findings generally support the stability of AMPD maladaptive traits and provide further evidence for the model's clinical utility.
Buck et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: