Pennsylvania State University.
Personal Disord. 2013 Oct;4(4):363-4. doi: 10.1037/per0000044.
Comments on an article by Krueger (see record 2013-45025-008). Pincus thanks Krueger for sharing his candid, highly informative views on the process and outcome of the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association; APA, 2013) Personality Disorder (PD) Work Group. As an "outsider," Pincus identifies with Krueger's descriptions of the scholarly anxiety evoked by following the unfolding process via the dsm5 .org Web site. In the end, however, Pincus thinks Section III is the right place for the proposal. He feels that its developmental process was more ambitious, but also more circuitous, than other revision efforts. Despite the APA's rejection of the proposal for Section II, Pincus agrees with Krueger's vision that continued research on viable aspects of the system represents an important next step in the post-DSM-5.0 era, and the system's inclusion in Section III should provide additional impetus for new research that advances the science of personality pathology. Thus, Pincus takes the optimistic view that innovation in conceptualizing and diagnosing PD has actually made it in through the out door. He notes that how things progress from here is hard to predict.
评论一篇由 Krueger（见记录 2013-45025-008）撰写的文章。Pincus 感谢 Krueger 坦诚地分享了他对 DSM-5（美国精神病学协会；APA，2013）人格障碍（PD）工作组的过程和结果的看法。作为一个“局外人”，Pincus 认同 Krueger 对通过 dsm5.org 网站跟踪展开过程所引发的学术焦虑的描述。然而，最终，Pincus 认为第三节是该提案的合适位置。他认为，其发展过程比其他修订工作更具野心，但也更迂回。尽管 APA 拒绝了第二节的提案，但 Pincus 同意 Krueger 的观点，即继续研究该系统可行的方面代表了在后 DSM-5.0 时代的重要下一步，而该系统被纳入第三节应该为推进人格病理学科学的新研究提供额外动力。因此，Pincus 持乐观态度，认为在概念化和诊断 PD 方面的创新实际上已经通过了这扇大门。他指出，从这里开始事情如何发展很难预测。
