1932

Abstract

Level of Personality Functioning (LPF) represents the entry criterion (Criterion A) of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) in the fifth edition of the (DSM-5). It is defined as a dimensional general severity criterion common to all personality disorders and conceptually independent of personality types or traits, and it represents maladaptive self (identity and self-direction) and interpersonal (empathy and intimacy) functioning. We review the history, measurement, and significance of LPF. We show that the inclusion of LPF in the AMPD is well justified if it is defined as a general adaptive failure of a subjective intrapsychic system needed to fulfill adult life tasks. If so defined, LPF distinguishes itself from maladaptive traits (Criterion B of the AMPD) and captures the contribution humans make as agentic authors to the interpretation and management of the self. While Criterion B maladaptive traits provide important descriptive nuance to manifestations of personality pathology, maladaptive LPF is conditional to the diagnosis of personality disorder.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-105402
2021-05-07
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/clinpsy/17/1/annurev-clinpsy-081219-105402.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-105402&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson JL, Sellbom M. 2018. Evaluating the DSM-5 Section III personality disorder impairment criteria. Personal. Disord. 9:51–61
    [Google Scholar]
  2. APA (Am. Psychiatr. Assoc.) 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Arlington, VA: Am. Psychiatr. Publ. , 5th ed..
  3. Azim HF, Piper WE, Segal PM, Nixon GW, Duncan SC 1991. The Quality of Object Relations Scale. Bull. Menninger Clin. 55:323–43
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bach B, Anderson JL. 2020. Patient-reported ICD-11 personality disorder severity and DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning. J. Personal. Disord. 34:231–49
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bach B, Hutsebaut J. 2018. Level of Personality Functioning Scale–Brief Form 2.0: utility in capturing personality problems in psychiatric outpatients and incarcerated addicts. J. Personal. Assess. 100:660–70
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bastiaansen L, De Fruyt F, Rossi G, Schotte C, Hofmans J 2013. Personality disorder dysfunction versus traits: structural and conceptual issues. Personal. Disord. 4:293–303
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bender DS, Morey LC, Skodol AE 2011. Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, part I: a review of theory and methods. J. Personal. Assess. 93:332–46Summary of the original intention behind the meaning of LPF as intended by the DSM-5 work group.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bender DS, Skodol AE. 2007. Borderline personality as a self-other representational disturbance. J. Personal. Disord. 21:500–17
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bender DS, Skodol AE, First MB, Oldham JM 2018. Module I: Structured Clinical Interview for the Level of Personality Functioning Scale. Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (SCID-5-AMPD) MB First, AE Skodol, DS Bender, JM Oldham Arlington, VA: Am. Psychiatr. Assoc. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Berghuis H, Kamphuis JH, Verheul R 2012. Core features of personality disorder: differentiating general personality dysfunctioning from personality traits. J. Personal. Disord. 26:704–16
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Berghuis H, Kamphuis JH, Verheul R 2014. Specific personality traits and general personality dysfunction as predictors of the presence and severity of personality disorders in a clinical sample. J. Personal. Assess. 96:410–16
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bers SA, Blatt SJ, Sayward HK, Johnston RS 1993. Normal and pathological aspects of self-descriptions and their change over long-term treatment. Psychoanal. Psychol. 10:17–37
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Berzonsky MD. 2011. A social-cognitive perspective on identity construction. Handbook of Identity Theory and Research: Structures and Processes SJ Schwartz, K Luyckx, VL Vignoles 55–75 New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Blatt SJ, Lerner H. 1983. The psychological assessment of object representation. J. Personal. Assess. 47:7–28
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bo S, Bach B, Mortensen EL, Simonsen E 2016. Reliability and hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological traits in a Danish mixed sample. J. Personal. Disord. 30:112–29
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Buer Christensen T, Eikenaes I, Hummelen B, Pedersen G, Nysaeter TE et al. 2020. Level of personality functioning as a predictor of psychosocial functioning—concurrent validity of criterion A. Personal. Disord. 11:79–90First validation of the interview-based DSM-5 LPF measure, SCID-5-AMPD Module I.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Buer Christensen TB, Paap MCS, Arnesen M, Koritzinsky K, Nysaeter TE et al. 2018. Interrater reliability of the structured clinical interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module I: Level of Personality Functioning Scale. J. Personal. Assess. 100:630–41
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Busmann M, Wrege J, Meyer AH, Ritzler F, Schmidlin M et al. 2019. Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (DSM-5) predicts dropout in inpatient psychotherapy for patients with personality disorder. Front. Psychol. 10:952
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Caspi A, Houts RM, Belsky DW, Goldman-Mellor SJ, Harrington H et al. 2014. The p factor: one general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders. ? Clin. Psychol. Sci. 2:119–37
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Chanen AM, Berk M, Thompson K 2016. Integrating early intervention for borderline personality disorder and mood disorders. Harvard Rev. Psychiatry 24:330–41
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark LA. 2007. Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58:227–57
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Clark LA, Nuzum H, Ro E 2017. Manifestations of personality impairment severity: comorbidity, course/prognosis, psychosocial dysfunction, and ‘borderline’ personality features. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 21:117–21
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Clark LA, Ro E. 2014. Three-pronged assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder and its consequences: personality functioning, pathological traits, and psychosocial disability. Personal. Disord. 5:55–69
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Clarkin JF, Caligor E, Stern B, Kernberg OF 2004. Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO) New York: Weill Med. Coll., Cornell Univ.
  25. Creswell KG, Bachrach RL, Wright AG, Pinto A, Ansell E 2016. Predicting problematic alcohol use with the DSM-5 alternative model of personality pathology. Personal. Disord. 7:103–11
    [Google Scholar]
  26. De Clercq B, Decuyper M, De Caluwé E 2014. Developmental manifestations of borderline personality pathology from an age-specific dimensional personality disorder trait framework. Handbook of Borderline Personality Disorder in Children and Adolescents C Sharp, JL Tackett 81–94 New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  27. DeFife JA, Goldberg M, Westen D 2015. Dimensional assessment of self- and interpersonal functioning in adolescents: implications for DSM-5’s general definition of personality disorder. J. Personal. Disord. 29:248–60
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dereboy F, Dereboy C, Eskin M 2018. Validation of the DSM-5 Alternative Model Personality Disorder diagnoses in Turkey, Part 1: LEAD validity and reliability of the personality functioning ratings. J. Personal. Assess. 100:603–11
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Erikson EH. 1968. Identity: Youth and Crisis Oxford, UK: Norton & Co.
  30. Erikson EH. 1977. Childhood and Society London: Paladin Grafton
  31. Few LR, Miller JD, Rothbaum AO, Meller S, Maples J et al. 2013. Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 122:1057–69
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fonagy P, Bateman A. 2009. Mentalization-based treatment for borderline personality disorder. Essentials of Personality Disorders J Oldham, AE Skodol, DS Bender 209–33 Washington, DC: Am. Psychiatr. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fossati A, Borroni S, Somma A, Markon KE, Krueger RF 2017. Testing relationships between DSM-5 Section III maladaptive traits and measures of self and interpersonal impairment in Italian community dwelling adults. Personal. Disord. 8:275–80
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Freud S. 1923. The Ego and the Id London: Hogarth
  35. Gamache D, Savard C, Leclerc P, Cote A 2019. Introducing a short self-report for the assessment of DSM-5 level of personality functioning for personality disorders: the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale. Personal. Disord. 10:438–47
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Garcia DJ, Skadberg RM, Schmidt M, Bierma S, Shorter RL, Waugh MH 2018. It's not that difficult: an interrater reliability study of the DSM-5 Section III Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. J. Personal. Assess. 100:612–20
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Goth K, Birkholzer M, Schmeck K 2018. Assessment of personality functioning in adolescents with the LoPF-Q 12–18 self-report questionnaire. J. Personal. Assess. 100:680–90
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Haslam N. 2003. Categorical versus dimensional models of mental disorder: the taxometric evidence. Aust. N.Z. J. Psychiatry 37:696–704
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hentschel AG, Pukrop R. 2014. The essential features of personality disorder in DSM-5: the relationship between criteria A and B. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 202:412–18
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hopwood CJ, Good EW, Morey LC 2018. Validity of the DSM-5 Levels of Personality Functioning Scale–Self Report. J. Personal. Assess. 100:650–59
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hopwood CJ, Malone JC, Ansell EB, Sanislow CA, Gill CM et al. 2011. Personality assessment in DSM-5: empirical support for rating severity, style, and traits. J. Personal. Disord. 25:305–20
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Huprich SK, Auerbach JS, Porcerelli JH, Bupp LL 2016. Sidney Blatt's object relations inventory: contributions and future directions. J. Personal. Assess. 98:30–43
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Huprich SK, Nelson SM, Meehan KB, Siefert CJ, Haggerty G et al. 2018. Introduction of the DSM-5 Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire. Personal. Disord. 9:553–63
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hutsebaut J, Feenstra DJ, Kamphuis JH 2016. Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a brief self-report questionnaire for the assessment of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale: the LPFS Brief Form (LPFS-BF). Personal. Disord. 7:192–97
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hutsebaut J, Kamphuis JH, Feenstra DJ, Weekers LC, De Saeger H 2017. Assessing DSM-5-oriented level of personality functioning: development and psychometric evaluation of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1). Personal. Disord. 8:94–101
    [Google Scholar]
  46. James W. 1963. 1892. The self. Psychology176–216 New York: Fawcett
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kampe L, Zimmermann J, Bender D, Caligor E, Borowski AL et al. 2018. Comparison of the structured DSM-5 clinical interview for the Level of Personality Functioning Scale with the Structured Interview of Personality Organization. J. Personal. Assess. 100:642–49
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kernberg OF. 1967. Borderline personality organization. J. Am. Psychoanal. Assoc. 15:641–85
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kernberg OF. 1984. Severe Personality Disorders: Psychotherapeutic Strategies New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  50. Kernberg OF, Caligor E. 2005. A psychoanalytic theory of personality disorders. Major Theories of Personality Disorder MF Lenzenweger, JF Clarkin 114–56 New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kotelnikova Y, Nuzum H, Ro E, Clark L 2019. Conceptual and measurement challenges in dimensional personality disorder research Paper presented at the International Society for the Study of Personality Disorders (ISSPD) 2019 Congress Vancouver, Can: Oct 15–18
  52. Kotov R, Krueger RF, Watson D, Achenbach TM, Althoff RR et al. 2017. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): a dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 126:454–77
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Koudys JW, Traynor JM, Rodrigo AH, Carcone D, Ruocco AC 2019. The NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative and its implications for research on personality disorder. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 21:37
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE 2012. Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol. Med. 42:1879–90
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Krueger RF, Kotov R, Watson D, Forbes MK, Eaton NR et al. 2018. Progress in achieving quantitative classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry 17:282–93
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lenzenweger MF, Clarkin JF, Kernberg OF, Foelsch PA 2001. The Inventory of Personality Organization: psychometric properties, factorial composition, and criterion relations with affect, aggressive dyscontrol, psychosis proneness, and self-domains in a nonclinical sample. Psychol. Assess. 13:577–91
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Lind M, Vanwoerden S, Penner F, Sharp C 2019. Inpatient adolescents with borderline personality disorder features: identity diffusion and narrative incoherence. Personal. Disord. 10:389–93
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Lind M, Vanwoerden S, Penner F, Sharp C 2020. Narrative coherence in adolescence: relations with attachment, mentalization, and psychopathology. J. Personal. Assess. 102:380–89
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lingiardi V, McWilliams N, eds. 2017. Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM-2) New York: Guilford
  60. Livesley J. 2003. Practical Management of Personality Disorders New York: Guilford
  61. Livesley J. 2010. General Assessment of Personality Disorder Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assess. Syst.
  62. Livesley J. 2011. Commentary: tentative steps in the right direction. Personal. Ment. Health 5:263–70
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Livesley WJ, Schroeder ML, Jackson DN, Jang KL 1994. Categorical distinctions in the study of personality disorder: implications for classification. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 103:6–17
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Loevinger J. 1957. Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychol. Rep. 3:635–94
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Marcia JE. 1966. Development and validation of ego-identity status. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 3:551–58
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Masterson JF. 1988. The Search for the Real Self: Unmasking the Personality Disorders of Our Age New York: Free Press
  67. McAdams DP. 2008. Personal narratives and the life story. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research JR Robins, L Pervin, 242–62 New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  68. McAdams DP. 2015. The Art and Science of Personality Development. New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Mead GH 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Morey LC. 2017. Development and initial evaluation of a self-report form of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale. Psychol. Assess. 29:1302–8First validation of the self-report DSM-5 LPF measure, LPFS.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Morey LC. 2018. Application of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale by lay raters. J. Personal. Disord. 32:709–20
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Morey LC. 2019a. Interdiagnostician reliability of the DSM-5 Section II and Section III Alternative Model criteria for borderline personality disorder. J. Personal. Disord. 33:721–35
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Morey LC. 2019b. Thoughts on the assessment of the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders: comment on Sleep et al. 2019. Psychol. Assess. 31:1192–99
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Morey LC, Bender DS, Skodol AE 2013a. Validating the proposed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, severity indicator for personality disorder. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 201:729–35
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Morey LC, Benson KT, Busch AJ, Skodol AE 2015. Personality disorders in DSM-5: emerging research on the alternative model. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 17:558
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Morey LC, Berghuis H, Bender DS, Verheul R, Krueger RF, Skodol AE 2011. Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM-5, Part II: empirical articulation of a core dimension of personality pathology. J. Personal. Assess. 93:347–53Summary of the original intention behind the meaning of LPF as intended by the DSM-5 work group.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Morey LC, Krueger RF, Skodol AE 2013b. The hierarchical structure of clinician ratings of proposed DSM-5 pathological personality traits. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 122:836–41
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Nelson SM, Huprich SK, Meehan KB, Siefert C, Haggerty G et al. 2018. Convergent and discriminant validity and utility of the DSM-5 Levels of Personality Functioning Questionnaire (DLOPFQ): associations with medical health care provider ratings and measures of physical health. J. Personal. Assess. 100:671–79
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Olajide K, Munjiza J, Moran P, O'Connell L, Newton-Howes G et al. 2018. Development and psychometric properties of the Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD). J. Personal. Disord. 32:44–56
    [Google Scholar]
  80. OPD Task Force 2001. Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics (OPD): Foundations and Practical Handbook Toronto: Hogrefe
  81. OPD Task Force 2008. Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis OPD-2: Manual of Diagnosis and Treatment Planning Toronto: Hogrefe
  82. Parker G, Both L, Olley A, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Irvine P, Jacobs G 2002. Defining disordered personality functioning. J. Personal. Disord. 16:503–22
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Parker G, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Both L, Kumar S, Wilhelm K, Olley A 2004. Measuring disordered personality functioning: to love and to work reprised. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 110:230–39
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Pfeifer JH, Blakemore SJ. 2012. Adolescent social cognitive and affective neuroscience: past, present, and future. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Preti E, Di Pierro R, Costantini G, Benzi IMA, De Panfilis C, Madeddu F 2018. Using the Structured Interview of Personality Organization for DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning rating performed by inexperienced raters. J. Personal. Assess. 100:621–29
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Reed GM. 2018. Progress in developing a classification of personality disorders for ICD-11. World Psychiatry 17:227–29
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Roche MJ. 2018. Examining the alternative model for personality disorder in daily life: evidence for incremental validity. Personal. Disord. 9:574–83
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Roche MJ, Jacobson NC, Phillips JJ 2018. Expanding the validity of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale observer report and self-report versions across psychodynamic and interpersonal paradigms. J. Personal. Assess. 100:571–80
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Rosen K. 2016. Social and Emotional Development: Attachment Relationships and the Emerging Self London: Macmillan Educ. UK
  90. Rossi G, Debast I, van Alphen SPJ 2017. Measuring personality functioning in older adults: construct validity of the Severity Indices of Personality Functioning–Short Form (SIPP-SF). Aging Ment. Health 21:703–11
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Russ E, Shedler J, Bradley R, Westen D 2008. Refining the construct of narcissistic personality disorder: diagnostic criteria and subtypes. Am. J. Psychiatry 165:1473–81
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Rutter M, Sroufe LA. 2000. Developmental psychopathology: concepts and challenges. Dev. Psychopathol. 12:265–96
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Samuel D, Widiger T. 2007. Describing Ted Bundy's personality and working towards DSM-V. Indep. Pract. 27:20–22
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Scott C, Medeiros M. 2020. Personality and political careers: What personality types are likely to run for office and get elected. ? Personal. Ind. Differ. 152:109600
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Sharp C. 2016a. Bridging the gap: the assessment and treatment of adolescent personality disorder in routine clinical care. Arch. Dis. Child. 102:103–8
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Sharp C. 2016b. Current trends in BPD research as indicative of a broader sea-change in psychiatric nosology. Personal. Disord. 7:334–43
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Sharp C. 2018. Calling for a unified redefinition of “borderlineness”: commentary on Gunderson et al. J. Personal. Disord. 32:168–74
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Sharp C. 2020a. Adolescent personality pathology and the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders: self development as nexus. Psychopathology 53:198–204
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Sharp C. 2020b. Putting the person back into person(ality) disorder. Oxford Handbook of Personality Disorders T Widiger Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. , 2nd ed.. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Sharp C. 2020c. What's in a name? The importance of adolescent personality pathology for adaptive psychosocial function. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 59:1130–32
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Sharp C, Hernandez J. 2021. Mindreading and psychopathology in middle childhood and adolescence. Theory of Mind in Middle Childhood and Adolescence: Integrating Multiple Perspectives S Lecce, RT Devine London: Taylor & Francis
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Sharp C, Kalpakci A. 2015. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck: evaluating the validity of borderline personality disorder in adolescents. Scand. J. Child Adolesc. Psychol. Psychiatry 3:49–62
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Sharp C, Kerr S, Chanen A 2020. Prevention and early identification and prevention of personality pathology: an AMPD informed model of clinical staging. The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Personality Disorders J Oldham, AE Skodol, DS Bender 285–337 Washington, DC: Am. Psychiatr. Publ. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Sharp C, Kim S. 2015. Recent advances in the developmental aspects of borderline personality disorder. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 17:556
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Sharp C, Wall K. 2017. Personality pathology grows up: adolescence as a sensitive period. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 21:111–16
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Sharp C, Wall K. 2018. Maladaptive interpersonal signatures as “re-descriptions” of Criterion B. Eur. J. Personal. 32:582–83
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Sharp C, Wright AGC, Fowler JC, Frueh BC, Allen JG et al. 2015. The structure of personality pathology: both general (‘g’) and specific (‘s’) factors. ? J. Abnorm. Psychol. 124:387–98First paper to suggest overlap between BPD and the general severity criterion, LPF.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Siefert CJ, Sexton J, Meehan K, Nelson S, Haggerty G et al. 2020. Development of a short form for the DSM-5 Levels of Personality Functioning questionnaire. J. Personal. Assess. 102:516–26
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Skodol AE. 2018. Impact of personality pathology on psychosocial functioning. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 21:33–38
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Sleep CE, Lynam DR, Widiger TA, Crowe ML, Miller JD 2019. An evaluation of DSM-5 Section III personality disorder Criterion A (impairment) in accounting for psychopathology. Psychol. Assess. 31:1181–91
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Thylstrup B, Simonsen S, Nemery C, Simonsen E, Noll JF et al. 2016. Assessment of personality-related levels of functioning: a pilot study of clinical assessment of the DSM-5 level of personality functioning based on a semi-structured interview. BMC Psychiatry 16:298
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Tyrer P, Johnson T. 1996. Establishing the severity of personality disorder. Am. J. Psychiatry 153:1593–97
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Tyrer P, Mulder R, Kim YR, Crawford MJ 2019. The development of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: an amalgam of science, pragmatism, and politics. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 15:481–502
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Tyrer P, Reed GM, Crawford MJ 2015. Classification, assessment, prevalence, and effect of personality disorder. Lancet 385:717–26
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Verbeke L, De Caluwe E, De Clercq B 2017. A five-factor model of developmental personality pathology precursors. Personal. Disord. 8:130–39
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Verheul R, Andrea H, Berghout CC, Dolan C, Busschbach JJ et al. 2008. Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP-118): development, factor structure, reliability, and validity. Psychol. Assess. 20:23–34
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Wakefield JC. 1992. The concept of mental disorder: on the boundary between biological facts and social values. Am. Psychol. 47:373–88
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Wakefield JC. 2008. The perils of dimensionalization: challenges in distinguishing negative traits from personality disorders. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 31:3379–93
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Weekers LC, Hutsebaut J, Kamphuis JH 2019. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: update of a brief instrument for assessing level of personality functioning. Personal. Ment. Health 13:3–14
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Westen D, Shedler J. 1999a. Revising and assessing axis II, Part I: developing a clinically and empirically valid assessment method. Am. J. Psychiatry 156:258–72
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Westen D, Shedler J. 1999b. Revising and assessing axis II, Part II: toward an empirically based and clinically useful classification of personality disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry 156:273–85
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Westen D, Shedler J, Bradley R 2006. A prototype approach to personality disorder diagnosis. Am. J. Psychiatry 163:846–56
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Whitbourne SK. 2002. Identity processes in adulthood: theoretical and methodological challenges. Identity 2:29–45
    [Google Scholar]
  124. WHO (World Health Organ.) 2001. ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Geneva, Switz: WHO
  125. Widiger TA, Bach B, Chmielewski M, Clark LA, DeYoung C et al. 2019. Criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP. J. Personal. Assess. 101:345–55Describes how HiTOP, a purely trait-based model of psychopathology, challenges the value of LPF.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Widiger TA, Simonsen E, Krueger R, Livesley WJ, Verheul R 2005. Personality disorder research agenda for the DSM-V. J. Personal. Disord. 19:315–38
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Widiger TA, Trull TJ. 2007. Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: shifting to a dimensional model. Am. Psychol. 62:71–83
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Williams TF, Scalco MD, Simms LJ 2018. The construct validity of general and specific dimensions of personality pathology. Psychol. Med. 48:834–48
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Wright AGC, Hopwood CJ, Skodol AE, Morey LC 2016. Longitudinal validation of general and specific structural features of personality pathology. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 125:1120–34
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Zanarini MC, Frankenburg FR, Reich DB, Fitzmaurice G 2012. Attainment and stability of sustained symptomatic remission and recovery among patients with borderline personality disorder and axis II comparison subjects: a 16-year prospective follow-up study. Am. J. Psychiatry 169:476–83
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Zettl M, Taubner S, Hutsebaut J, Volkert J 2019. [Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP-5.1)]. Psychother. Psychosom. Med. Psychol. 69:499–504 In German )
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Zettl M, Volkert J, Vogele C, Herpertz SC, Kubera KM, Taubner S 2020. Mentalization and criterion A of the alternative model for personality disorders: results from a clinical and nonclinical sample. Personal. Disord. 11:191–201
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Zimmermann J, Benecke C, Bender DS, Skodol AE, Schauenburg H et al. 2014. Assessing DSM-5 level of personality functioning from videotaped clinical interviews: a pilot study with untrained and clinically inexperienced students. J. Personal. Assess. 96:397–409
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Zimmermann J, Bohnke JR, Eschstruth R, Mathews A, Wenzel K, Leising D 2015. The latent structure of personality functioning: investigating Criterion A from the alternative model for personality disorders in DSM-5. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 124:532–48
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-105402
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-105402
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error