Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Personal Disord. 2013 Jul;4(3):291-2. doi: 10.1037/per0000005.
Replies to comments by C. Hopwood (see record 2013-27219-003), W. Iacono (see record 2013-27219-001) and A. Skodol and R. Krueger (see record 2013-27219-002) on the article by S. C. South and N. J. DeYoung (see record 2012-01744-001). This commentary examines how behavior genetic research can be used to inform the revision of personality disorders (PDs) during the transition from DSM-IV to DSM-5. South and DeYoung address three "meta-themes" that emerged across these responses. First, personality disorders are disorders, and should be defined and diagnosed as such. Second, the DSM is fundamentally a manual for assessment and diagnosis, and thus needs to be usable for those purposes. Third, what can behavior genetics do as we move toward the DSM-5? In summary, there is much work to be done over the coming months to finalize the practical details of the DMS-5 proposal.
回复 C. Hopwood（见记录 2013-27219-003）、W. Iacono（见记录 2013-27219-001）和 A. Skodol 和 R. Krueger（见记录 2013-27219-002）对 S. C. South 和 N. J. DeYoung（见记录 2012-01744-001）文章的评论。这篇评论探讨了行为遗传学研究如何在从 DSM-IV 到 DSM-5 的过渡过程中为人格障碍（PD）的修订提供信息。South 和 DeYoung 探讨了这些回应中出现的三个“元主题”。首先，人格障碍是一种障碍，应该按照这种方式进行定义和诊断。其次，DSM 本质上是评估和诊断的手册，因此需要能够用于这些目的。第三，随着我们进入 DSM-5，行为遗传学能做些什么？总之，在接下来的几个月里，有很多工作要做，以敲定 DSM-5 提案的实际细节。
