Pires Rute, Henriques-Calado Joana, Sousa Ferreira Ana, Gama Marques João, Ribeiro Moreira Ana, Barata Bernardo C, Paulino Marco, Gonçalves Bruno
Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, Lisbon, Portugal.
CICPSI, Faculdade de Psicologia, Universidade de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, Lisbon, Portugal.
Front Psychiatry. 2023 Mar 2;14:1004895. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1004895. eCollection 2023.
In both the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) personality disorders (PD) are characterized by impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning which distinguish the various levels of dysfunction. Moreover, pathological traits are used by these classification systems to define the stylistic expression of personality dysfunction. Negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition feature as trait domains in each of these models. However, there are also differences between the two models, namely, in the psychoticism domain, which does not feature as a personality trait domain in the ICD-11, and in the anankastia domain, corresponding to compulsivity in the DSM-5, which was removed from the final AMPD model. Furthermore, facets are acknowledged by the DSM-5 within each trait domain, while this does not occur in the ICD-11. In view of the similarity between these classification systems, their harmonization would be beneficial for the clinical profession. With this goal in mind, the PID5BF + M, an algorithm that assesses the DSM-5 and ICD-11 six trait domains and 18 facets, was developed and has proven to adequately characterize the ICD-11 trait domains by means of DSM-5 trait facets.
The current study compares a community sample ( = 280, = 48.01, 53.2% females) with a PD sample ( = 131, = 42.66, 45.0% females) along with the PID5BF + M, the LPFS-SR and the PID-5. Given that the PID5BF + M total can be seen as a measure of the level of personality dysfunction, strong relations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total are expected. Strong relations between the trait specifiers measured by the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 are also expected. Finally, the community and clinical samples are expected to differentiate by means of the dimensions assessed through the three afore-mentioned measures. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of associations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total and between the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 traits. Group differences were explored using the Mann-Whitney test for independent samples.
As expected, there were strong, significant, and positive relations between the measures. Furthermore, higher scores were observed in all the variables for the PD group against the community group.
Although this study has limitations, its findings sustain that the PID5BF + M has potential to assess the severity of personality disfunction and to characterize the stylistic features of PD as they are conceived by both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Although more research is needed regarding the convergent validity of the PID5BF + M, this new test contributes to the harmonization of both systems and to parsimony in the assessment of PD, which is the main objective of clinical practice.
在《国际疾病分类第11版:人格障碍分类》和《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第5版:人格障碍替代模型》(AMPD)中,人格障碍(PD)的特征均为自我功能和人际功能受损,这些功能障碍存在不同程度的差异。此外,这些分类系统使用病理特质来定义人格功能障碍的风格化表现。消极情感性、脱离、敌对/反社会性和抑制解除是上述每种模型中的特质领域。然而,这两种模型之间也存在差异,即在精神病性领域,《国际疾病分类第11版》中未将其作为人格特质领域;在强迫性领域,对应于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第5版》中的强迫性,该领域已从最终的AMPD模型中删除。此外,《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第5版》在每个特质领域中都认可了子维度,而《国际疾病分类第11版》中则没有。鉴于这些分类系统之间的相似性,它们的协调统一将对临床专业有益。出于这一目标,开发了PID5BF + M算法,该算法可评估《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第5版》和《国际疾病分类第11版》的六个特质领域和18个子维度,并已证明能够通过《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第5版》的特质子维度充分描述《国际疾病分类第11版》的特质领域。
本研究将一个社区样本(n = 280,M = 48.01,53.2%为女性)与一个人格障碍样本(n = 131,M = 42.66,45.0%为女性)进行比较,同时使用PID5BF + M、LPFS - SR和PID - 5。鉴于PID5BF + M总分可被视为一种人格功能障碍水平的度量,预计PID5BF + M总分与LPFS - SR总分之间存在强关联。还预计PID5BF + M所测量的特质说明符与PID - 5之间存在强关联。最后,预计社区样本和临床样本能够通过上述三种测量方法所评估的维度进行区分。使用斯皮尔曼等级相关系数来测量PID5BF + M总分与LPFS - SR总分之间以及PID5BF + M与PID - 5特质之间关联的强度和方向。使用曼 - 惠特尼U检验对独立样本探索组间差异。
正如预期的那样,这些测量方法之间存在强的、显著的正相关关系。此外,与社区组相比,人格障碍组在所有变量上的得分更高。
尽管本研究存在局限性,但其结果支持PID5BF + M有潜力评估人格功能障碍的严重程度,并描述《国际疾病分类第11版》和《精神疾病诊断与统计手册第5版》所设想的人格障碍的风格特征。尽管关于PID5BF + M的收敛效度还需要更多研究,但这项新测试有助于两个系统的协调统一以及人格障碍评估的简约性,这是临床实践的主要目标。