Department of Psychology, University of Georgia.
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University.
Personal Disord. 2013 Oct;4(4):365-6. doi: 10.1037/per0000043.
Comments on an article by Krueger (see record 2013-45025-008). The current authors appreciate the opportunity to comment on Krueger's article. They remark that as a member of the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group (PPDWG), he is in a unique position to describe the process surrounding the deliberations of the PPDWG and why their model was placed in Section III. Whereas Krueger offers that too much openness and contentiousness in the personality and personality disorder (PD) field were responsible for the difficulties faced by the DSM-5 PPDWG proposal, the current authors suggest another condition that may have been at play: myopia. The current authors discuss several shortsighted decisions made by the PPDWG that may have contributed to the disappointing outcome. Specifically, they describe ways in which the PPDWG ignored large bodies of extant research that could have guided and supported the proposal, inoculating it against many of the most damning critiques.
评论 Krueger 的文章（见记录 2013-45025-008）。作者很高兴有机会对 Krueger 的文章进行评论。他们指出，作为 DSM-5（美国精神病学协会，2013 年）人格和人格障碍工作组（PPDWG）的成员，他处于一个独特的位置，可以描述围绕 PPDWG 审议的过程，以及为什么他们的模型被放在第三节。虽然 Krueger 认为人格和人格障碍（PD）领域的开放性和争议性太大，是 DSM-5 PPDWG 提案所面临困难的原因，但作者认为还有另一种可能起作用的情况：近视。作者讨论了 PPDWG 做出的几个短视决定，这些决定可能导致了令人失望的结果。具体来说，他们描述了 PPDWG 忽视大量现有研究的方式，这些研究本可以指导和支持该提案，使其免受许多最严厉的批评。
