Department of Psychology, Eastern Michigan University, EMU Science Complex, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA.
Personal Disord. 2012 Oct;3(4):470-82. doi: 10.1037/a0027765. Epub 2012 May 28.
In this paper, the criteria proposed by Kendler, Kupfer, Narrow, Philips, and Fawcett (2009) for the inclusion or exclusion of a diagnostic category in DSM-5 are reviewed as they relate to the proposal of depressive personality disorder (DPD). Three options are offered as possible decisions for the future of DPD, and a discussion of the actual decision by the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group is provided. Despite what may ultimately be the removal of the DPD type from the DSM-5, it is concluded that there is considerable support for DPD as a diagnostic category. Such a conclusion incorporates most coherently the empirical findings about the DPD proposal in a way that allows for ongoing empirical investigation of its biogenetic origins, its phenotypic manifestations (including its trait profile) and possible characterization as an endophenotype, and the clinical utility it appears to hold among clinicians.
本文回顾了 Kendler、Kupfer、Narrow、Philips 和 Fawcett（2009 年）提出的 DSM-5 中诊断类别的纳入或排除标准，因为这些标准与抑郁性人格障碍（DPD）的提议有关。为 DPD 的未来提供了三种可能的决策选择，并提供了人格和人格障碍工作组的实际决策讨论。尽管 DPD 类型最终可能会从 DSM-5 中删除，但结论是 DPD 作为一个诊断类别得到了相当多的支持。这样的结论最一致地将 DPD 提议的实证发现纳入其中，以便对其生物遗传起源、表型表现（包括其特质特征）以及可能作为内表型的特征以及它在临床医生中似乎具有的临床实用性进行持续的实证研究。
