A comparison of the DSM-5 Section II and Section III personality disorder structures

dc.contributor.authorAnderson, Jaime L
dc.contributor.authorSnider, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorSellbom, Martin
dc.contributor.authorKrueger, Robert F
dc.contributor.authorHopwood, Christopher J
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-10T23:36:30Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.date.updated2015-12-10T11:54:42Z
dc.description.abstractThe DSM-5 Section III includes a hybrid model for the diagnosis of personality disorders, in which sets of dimensional personality trait facets are configured into personality disorder types. These PD types resemble the Section II categorical counterparts with dimensional traits descriptive of the Section II criteria to maintain continuity across the diagnostic systems. The current study sought to evaluate the continuity across the Section II and III models of personality disorders. This sample consisted of 397 undergraduate students, administered the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (Krueger et al., 2012) and the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV Axis II Disorders-Personality Questionnaire (First et al., 2013). We examined whether the DSM-5 Section III trait facets for the PDs would be associated with their respective Section II counterparts, as well as determining whether additional facets could augment the prediction of the Section II disorders. Results revealed that, generally, the DSM-5 Section II disorders were most strongly associated with their Section III traits. Results also showed evidence to support the addition of facets not included in the Section III diagnostic criteria in the prediction of most disorders. These results show general support for the Section III model of personality disorders, however, results also show that additional research is needed to replicate these findings.
dc.identifier.issn0165-1781
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/70167
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.sourcePsychiatry Research
dc.titleA comparison of the DSM-5 Section II and Section III personality disorder structures
dc.typeJournal article
local.bibliographicCitation.issue3
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage372
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage363
local.contributor.affiliationAnderson, Jaime L, The University of Alabama
local.contributor.affiliationSnider, Stephen, University of Tulsa
local.contributor.affiliationSellbom, Martin, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, ANU
local.contributor.affiliationKrueger, Robert F, University of Minnesota
local.contributor.affiliationHopwood, Christopher J, Michigan State University
local.contributor.authoruidSellbom, Martin, u5450539
local.description.embargo2037-12-31
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.absfor170106 - Health, Clinical and Counselling Psychology
local.identifier.absfor170109 - Personality, Abilities and Assessment
local.identifier.absfor170104 - Forensic Psychology
local.identifier.ariespublicationU3488905xPUB2240
local.identifier.citationvolume216
local.identifier.doi10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.007
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-84899057546
local.identifier.thomsonID000336109800011
local.type.statusPublished Version

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Anderson_A_comparison_of_the_DSM-5_2014.pdf
Size:
269.76 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format