Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany.
Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2024 Nov;26(11):603-615. doi: 10.1007/s11920-024-01541-0. Epub 2024 Oct 16.
We summarized studies investigating measures related to the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) of the DSM-5 and the personality model in ICD-11 in offenders in forensic-psychiatric treatment or prison to evaluate its forensic utility.
The reformation of the DSM and ICD with regards to the introduction of dimensional assessments of personality disorders holds many advantages over categorical models concerning clinical utility. With regards to DSM-5 AMPD Criterion A, a limited number of studies (k = 4) report impairments in interpersonal functioning in offenders. Studies assessing Criterion B (k = 13) predominantly report higher personality impairment measures for offenders, especially for antagonism and disinhibition. Due to the heterogeneity of the selected studies, this review cannot draw conclusions with regard to the predictive value of dimensional models for offenders in forensic-psychiatric treatment or prison, but provides initial evidence for the validity and utility of DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 in these settings.
我们总结了有关 DSM-5 替代人格障碍模型(AMPD)和 ICD-11 中人格模型的研究,这些研究涉及在法医精神病治疗或监狱中的罪犯,以评估其法医用途。
DSM 和 ICD 的改革引入了人格障碍的维度评估,与分类模型相比,在临床实用性方面具有许多优势。关于 DSM-5 AMPD 标准 A,只有少数研究(k=4)报告罪犯在人际关系功能方面存在障碍。评估标准 B(k=13)的研究主要报告罪犯的人格障碍程度更高,特别是在敌对和冲动方面。由于所选研究的异质性,本综述不能就维度模型对法医精神病治疗或监狱中的罪犯的预测价值得出结论,但为 DSM-5 AMPD 和 ICD-11 在这些环境中的有效性和实用性提供了初步证据。