Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Borderline personality disorder diagnosis in a new key.
Mulay, Abby L; Waugh, Mark H; Fillauer, J Parks; Bender, Donna S; Bram, Anthony; Cain, Nicole M; Caligor, Eve; Forbes, Miriam K; Goodrich, Laurel B; Kamphuis, Jan H; Keeley, Jared W; Krueger, Robert F; Kurtz, John E; Jacobsson, Peter; Lewis, Katie C; Rossi, Gina M P; Ridenour, Jeremy M; Roche, Michael; Sellbom, Martin; Sharp, Carla; Skodol, Andrew E.
Afiliación
  • Mulay AL; 1Medical University of South Carolina, 29C Leinbach Drive, Charleston, SC 29407 USA.
  • Waugh MH; 2Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) & University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA.
  • Fillauer JP; 3University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA.
  • Bender DS; 4Tulane University, 6823 St. Charles Ave., Bldg. 92, New Orleans, LA 70118 USA.
  • Bram A; Lexington, USA.
  • Cain NM; 6Rutgers University, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, 152 Frelinghuysen Rd, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8020 USA.
  • Caligor E; 7Columbia University, 1501 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032 USA.
  • Forbes MK; 8Macquarie University, Balaclava Rd., Macquarie Park, NSW 2109 Australia.
  • Goodrich LB; Knoxville, USA.
  • Kamphuis JH; 10University of Amsterdam (UvA), Nieuwe Achtergracht, 129B, 1001 NK Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  • Keeley JW; 11Virginia Commonwealth University, 806 West Franklin Street, Box 842018, Richmond, VA 23284-2018 USA.
  • Krueger RF; 12University of Minnesota, 101 Pleasant St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA.
  • Kurtz JE; 13Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085 USA.
  • Jacobsson P; 14Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  • Lewis KC; 15Austen Riggs Center, 25 Main Street, P.O. Box 962, Stockbridge, MA 01262 USA.
  • Rossi GMP; 16Department of Psychology, Personality and Psychopathology Research group Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
  • Ridenour JM; 15Austen Riggs Center, 25 Main Street, P.O. Box 962, Stockbridge, MA 01262 USA.
  • Roche M; 17Penn State Altoona, 3000 Ivyside Park, Altoona, PA 16601 USA.
  • Sellbom M; 18University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054 New Zealand.
  • Sharp C; 19University of Houston, 3695 Cullen Boulevard Room 126, Houston, TX 77204-5022 USA.
  • Skodol AE; 20University of Arizona, 1501 N. Campbell Avenue, PO Box 245017, Tucson, AZ 85724 USA.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31827801
BACKGROUND: Conceptualizations of personality disorders (PD) are increasingly moving towards dimensional approaches. The definition and assessment of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in regard to changes in nosology are of great importance to theory and practice as well as consumers. We studied empirical connections between the traditional DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BPD and Criteria A and B of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). METHOD: Raters of varied professional backgrounds possessing substantial knowledge of PDs (N = 20) characterized BPD criteria with the four domains of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and 25 pathological personality trait facets. Mean AMPD values of each BPD criterion were used to support a nosological cross-walk of the individual BPD criteria and study various combinations of BPD criteria in their AMPD translation. The grand mean AMPD profile generated from the experts was compared to published BPD prototypes that used AMPD trait ratings and the DSM-5-III hybrid categorical-dimensional algorithm for BPD. Divergent comparisons with DSM-5-III algorithms for other PDs and other published PD prototypes were also examined. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability analyses showed generally robust agreement. The AMPD profile for BPD criteria rated by individual BPD criteria was not isomorphic with whole-person ratings of BPD, although they were highly correlated. Various AMPD profiles for BPD were generated from theoretically relevant but differing configurations of BPD criteria. These AMPD profiles were highly correlated and showed meaningful divergence from non-BPD DSM-5-III algorithms and other PD prototypes. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that traditional DSM BPD diagnosis reflects a common core of PD severity, largely composed of LPFS and the pathological traits of anxiousness, depressively, emotional lability, and impulsivity. Results confirm the traditional DSM criterion-based BPD diagnosis can be reliably cross-walked with the full AMPD scheme, and both approaches share substantial construct overlap. This relative equivalence suggests the vast clinical and research literatures associated with BPD may be brought forward with DSM-5-III diagnosis of BPD.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido