Oth- er studies concerning the validity of the DSM-IV clusters have suggested an alternative clustering e. As suggested by other re- search as well e. The question of whether the openness domain should be left out of the FFM of personality disorders or not remains debatable. However, as Widiger and Mullins-Sweatt correctly argued, this could have been solely an artifact of having an excessive amount of measures overrepresenting the openness domain.
That is, whether schizotypal should be considered as a PD or rather belongs to the schizophrenic dis- orders on Axis I is still open to dispute: the fact that including additional schizotypy measures yields a fifth factor does not necessarily mean this factor is related to personality pathology.
It could as well be a clinical syn- drome factor which conceptually stands apart from the other four person- ality related factors. Our own results do not allow for an unequivocal con- clusion, since the openness domain was a priori excluded as a latent factor from our confirmatory analyses. The current study has several strengths that are worth mentioning. First, we had the opportunity to work with two markedly large samples, a clinical and a general one—the latter being a stratified sample of the Flem- ish population.
Combined with the innovative methodology that was used, the results of this study are of an exceptional robustness and generaliza- bility across subjects from both clinical and general populations, support- ing the idea that abnormal personality only differs quantitatively and not qualitatively from normal personality Livesley et al.
In fact, this instrument has been proven superior among the existing self-report measures because of its exceptional psy- chometric qualities Doering et al. Many researchers e. That is, compared to the broad domains, the FFM facets provide much richer de- scriptions and finer predictions of PDs, are better able to differentiate be- tween PDs, and are more useful in understanding their covariance.
Unfor- variables the PDs would be explained by 30 latent factors i. FFM current study mainly illustrated by the covariance between narcissistic and borderline PDs that could not be sufficiently explained at the domain level. We needed to look at the facet level descriptions of these PDs within the low agreeableness domain, and take their facet level differences into account by allowing their errors to correlate.
Still, despite this limitation, this study supported in a methodologically innovative way that it is more correct to view PDs as being defined by a number of shared underlying dimensions than as conceptually distinct categories. Accordingly, a valid classification system of PD should be organized around these dimensions, and individuals should be classified in terms of their position on these different dimensions.
For nomological purposes, though, several authors e. However, more empirical research is needed to verify if it is adequate to define these prototypes in accordance to the existing DSM-IV PD diag- noses. It might be more desirable to formulate prototypes based on their clinical and empirical relevance e. Donnelly, J. Higher-order Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of dimensions of personality disorder: Mental Disorders 3rd ed. Washing- Hierarchical structure and relation- ton DC: Author.
Wash- — Blais, M. A psy- American Psychiatric Association Journal Mental Disorders 4th ed. Wash- of Personality Disorders, 11, — Browne, M. Cross-validation Austin, E. Personality Burnham, K. New York: Springer-Verlag.
A structural equation model- Byrne, B. Tg-Mures, Roma- Hyler, S. Frequency and nia: University Press. Retrieved Novem- P. Annual Review of Psychology, liams, J. A psychobiological model version 2. New York: Biometrics Re- of temperament and character. Psychiatric Institute. Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis Fossati, A. Borroni, S. Confirmatory factor anal- Costa, P. Journal of Personali- al manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological ty Disorders, 20, — Assessment Resources.
Fossati, A. Offending estimates in covari- Patterns of covariation of ance structure analysis: Comments on DSM-IV personality disorders in a the causes of and solutions to Hey- mixed psychiatric sample. Comprehen- wood cases. Psychological Bulletin, , sive Psychiatry, 41, — Graham, J. Congeneric and es- Doering, S. Validierung der deutschen Ver- how to use them. Educational and Psy- sion des Fragebogens zur Erfassung chological Measurement, 66, — Structural chosomatische Medizin und Psycho- Equation Modelling, 6, 1— Hyler, S.
The struc- tionnaire. New York: Author. Lin- ria. Endler, N. Kline, R. Principles and practice Federale Overheidsdienst voor Volksgezond- of structural equation modelling.
Behandeldiensten in de Klonsky, E. FFM tion of personality disorder: Clinical S. Evaluating replicability of wisdom or empirical truth? Jour- Inventory: Confirmatory factor analy- nal of Clinical Psychology, 56, — sis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal Di- Miller, J. The validity of the five- between DSM-IV personality disorder factor model prototypes for personality symptoms, the five-factor Model, and disorders in two clinical samples.
Psy- the biosocial model of personality. A search for consen- — Suggestions for a personality disorders. Journal of Clini- framework for an empirically based cal Psychology, 61, — A test Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43, of models of personality disorder con- — Journal of Abnormal Psy- Livesley, W. A framework for inte- chology, , 3— A cross-cultural — Factorial structure of French-speaking Africa and Switzer- traits delineating personality disor- land.
Journal of Personality Disorders, ders in clinical and general population 23, — Journal of Abnormal Psychol- Rodebaugh, T. The Livesley, W. Journal of Per- competing models. International Jour- sonality Disorders, 14, — Phenotypic and genetic struc- Samuel, D.
A me- ture of traits delineating personality ta-analytic review of the relationships disorder. Archives of General Psychia- between the five-factor model and try, 55, — Clinical Psycholo- D. Categorical gy Review, 28, — The disorder: Implications for classifica- five-factor model and personality dis- tion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, order empirical literature: A meta- , 6— Clinical Psychology Lynam, D.
Using Review, 23, — Antwerpen: Univer- pert consensus approach. Journal of sitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen. Abnormal Psychology, , — Schotte, C. Nestadt, G. Psychopraxis, 2, Disorders, fourth edition personality — Comprehensive Psy- Schotte, C. Official classification interview. Journal of Personality Disor- systems.
Livesley Ed. Self-report assessment of Widiger, T. Psycho- go. Clinical Psychology: Science and logical Medicine, 28, — Practice, 14, 94— Schumacker, R. A Widiger, T. To- sessment of personality disorders. Clinical Resources. Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, Widiger, T. Five-factor model of personali- Tackett, J. An- R. A di- nual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, mensional model of personality disor- — To- characteristics.
Journal of Abnormal ward a dimensional model of personal- Psychology, , — Structured interview for the five-factor — New York: The Guilford.
Alter- ual. Journal of Personality Disor- Structures of personality and ders, 19, — their relevance to psychopathology: II. Widiger, T. Plate tec- Further articulation of a comprehen- tonics in the classification of personal- sive unified trait structure. Journal of ity disorder: Shifting to a dimensional Personality, 76, — American Psychologist, 62, 71— Watson, D. Structures of personality and Widiger, T.
Sanderson, C. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, , Costa, Nederlandstalige versie van de Jr. Widiger Eds. Maastricht: disorders and the five-factor model of University of Maastricht, Department personality 2nd ed. Westen, D. Divergences between cili- World Health Organization. NCBI Bookshelf. This latest revision takes a lifespan perspective recognizing the importance of age and development on the onset, manifestation, and treatment of mental disorders.
DSM-5 include eliminating the multi-axial system; removing the Global Assessment of Functioning GAF score ; reorganizing the classification of the disorders; and changing how disorders that result from a general medical condition are conceptualized.
This report will supplement that information by providing details specifically about changes to disorders of childhood and their implications for generating estimates of child serious emotional disturbance SED. DSM-IV approached psychiatric assessment and organization of biopsychosocial information using a multi-axial formulation American Psychiatric Association, b. There were five different axes. Axis I consisted of mental health and substance use disorders SUDs ; Axis II was reserved for personality disorders and mental retardation; Axis III was used for coding general medical conditions; Axis IV was to note psychosocial and environmental problems e.
Although the impact of removing the overall multi-axial structure in DSM-5 is unknown, there is concern among clinicians that eliminating the structured approach for gathering and organizing clinical assessment data will hinder clinical practice Frances, However, the direct impact on the prevalence rates of childhood mental disorders is likely to be negligible as it will not affect the characteristics of diagnoses. From DSM-IV to DSM-5, there has been a reclassification of many disorders that reflects a better understanding of the classifications of disorders from emerging research or clinical knowledge.
In DSM-5, six classes were added and four were removed. As a result of these changes in the overall classification system, numerous individual disorders were reclassified from one class to another e.
0コメント