Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-92wsb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-11T04:18:22.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utility of DSM-5 section III personality traits in differentiating borderline personality disorder from comparison groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

B. Bach ,
M. Sellbom ,
S. Bo  and
E. Simonsen
B. Bach*
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand, Fælledvej 6Slagelse4200, Denmark
M. Sellbom
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
S. Bo
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand, Fælledvej 6Slagelse4200, Denmark
E. Simonsen
Affiliation:
Psychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand, Fælledvej 6Slagelse4200, Denmark Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
*
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 58 53 60 70.E-mail address:bobachsayad@gmail.com (B. Bach).
Get access

Abstract

Objective

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a highly prevalent diagnosis in mental health care and includes a heterogeneous constellation of symptoms. As the field of personality disorder (PD) research moves to emphasize dimensional traits in its operationalization, it is important to determine how the alternative DSM-5 Section III personality trait dimensions differentiates such features in BPD patients versus comparison groups. To date, no study has attempted such validation.

Method

The current study examined the utility of the DSM-5 trait dimensions in differentiating patients with the categorical DSM-IV/5 diagnosis of BPD (n = 101) from systematically matched samples of other PD patients (n = 101) and healthy controls (n = 101). This was investigated using one-way ANOVA and multinomial logistic regression analyses.

Results

Results indicated that Emotional Lability, Risk Taking, and Suspiciousness uniquely differentiated BPD patients from other PD patients, whereas Emotional Lability, Depressivity, and Suspiciousness uniquely differentiated BPD patients from healthy controls.

Conclusion

Emotional Lability is in particular a key BPD feature of the proposed Section III model, whereas Suspiciousness also augments essential BPD features. Provided that these findings are replicated cross-culturally in forthcoming research, a more parsimonious traits operationalization of BPD features is warranted.

Keywords

PID-5Borderline Personality DisorderDSM-5 Section IIIPersonality TraitsCriteria

Information

Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 37 , September 2016 , pp. 22 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Lieb, KZanarini, MCSchmahl, CLinehan, MMBohus, MBorderline personality disorder. Lancet 2004; 364(9432): 453–461CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skodol, AEGunderson, JGPfohl, BWidiger, TALivesley, WJSiever, LJThe Borderline Diagnosis I: psychopathology, comorbidity, and personality structure. Biol Psychiatry 2002; 51: 936–950CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, KSMyers, JReichborn-Kjennerud, TBorderline personality disorder traits and their relationship with dimensions of normative personality: a web-based cohort and twin study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2011; 123(5): 349–359CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, PWhy borderline personality disorder is neither borderline nor a personality disorder. Personal Ment Health 2009; 3(2): 86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morey, LCBenson, KTBusch, AJSkodol, AEPersonality disorders in DSM-5: emerging research on the alternative model. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2015; 17(24): 558CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fifth Edition DSM-5 Arlington: American Psychiatric Association; 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, RFDerringer, JMarkon, KEWatson, DSkodol, AEInitial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med 2012; 42(9): 1879–1890CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widiger, TASimonsen, EAlternative dimensional models of personality disorder: finding a common ground. J Pers Disord 2005; 19(2): 110–130CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samuel, DBWidiger, TAA meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2008; 28(8): 1326–1342 [cited 2013 Nov 15] http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2614445&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=AbstractCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, JLSnider, SSellbom, MKrueger, RFHopwood, CA comparison of the DSM-5 Section II and Section III personality disorder structures. Psychiatry Res 2014; 216(3): 363–372CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sellbom, MSansone, RASonger, DAAnderson, JLConvergence between DSM-5 Section II and Section III diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2014; 48(4): 325–332CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yam, WHSimms, LJSComparing criterion-and trait-based personality disorder diagnoses in DSM-5. J Abnorm Psychol 2014; 123(4): 802–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, CJThomas, KMMarkon, KEWright, AGCKrueger, RFDSM-5 personality traits and DSM-IV personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol 2012; 121(2): 424–432CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bach, BAnderson, JSimonsen, EContinuity between interview-rated personality disorders and self-reported DSM-5 traits in a Danish psychiatric sample Personal Disord Theory Res Treat 2016 10.1037/per0000171 (in press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, BSellbom, MContinuity between DSM-5 categorical criteria and traits criteria for borderline personality disorder Can J Psychiatry 2016 10.1177/0706743716640756 (in press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linehan, MCognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder The Guilford Press; 1993Google Scholar
Carpenter, RWTrull, TJComponents of emotion dysregulation in borderline personality disorder: a review. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2013; 15(1): 335CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, LRMortensen, ELBech, PMental distress in the Danish general population. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2006; 113(6): 477–484CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Dajani, NGralnick, TMBagby, RMA psychometric review of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID–5): current status and future directions. J Pers Assess 2016; 98(1): 62–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bach, BMaples-Keller, JLBo, SSimonsen, EThe alternative DSM-5 personality disorder traits criterion: a comparative examination of three self-report forms in a Danish population Personal Disord Theory Res Treat 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000162 (in press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bo, SBach, BMortensen, ELSimonsen, EReliability and hierarchichal structure of DSM-5 pathological traits in a Danish mixed sample. J Pers Disord 2016; 30(1): 112–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association, The Personality Inventory DSM-5 (PID-5) Self-Report Form (full version) American Psychiatric Association; 2013.1–9http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm5/online-assessment-measures#PersonalityGoogle Scholar
First, MBGibbon, MSpitzer, RLWilliams, JBWBenjamin, LSStructured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders (SCID II) New York: Biometric Research Department; 1994Google Scholar
StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2013Google Scholar
Livesley, JToward a genetically-informed model of borderline personality disorder. J Pers Disord 2008; 22(1): 42–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donges, USDukalski, BKersting, ASuslow, TAutomatic processing of facial affects in patients with borderline personality disorder: associations with symptomatology and comorbid disorders Ann Gen Psychiatry Biomed Central 2015; 14(1): 20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oldham, JMBorderline Personality, Disorder, J Psychiatr Pract 2010; 16(3): 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, JGSinger, MTDefining borderline patients: an overview. Am J Psychiatry 1975; 132(1): 1–10Google ScholarPubMed
Watson, DTellegen, AToward a consensual structure of mood. Psychol Bull 1985; 98(2): 219–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, RFEaton, NRPersonality traits and the classification of mental disorders: toward a more complete integration in DSM-5 and an empirical model of psychopathology. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat 2010; 1(2): 97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, LVanderbleek, EShapir, JNuzum, HAllen, XDaly, Eet al.The brave new world of personality disorder-trait specified: effects of additional definitions on coverage, prevalence, and comorbidity. Psychopathol Rev 2015; 2(1): 52–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, MRothschild, LChelminski, IThe prevalence of DSM-IV personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 1911–1918CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansen, MKarterud, SPedersen, GGude, TFalkum, EAn investigation of the prototype validity of the borderline DSM-IV construct. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2004; 109(4): 289–298CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torgersen, SKringlen, ECramer, VThe prevalence of personality disorders in a community sample. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2001; 58(6): 590–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrer, PReed, GMCrawford, MJClassification, assessment, prevalence, and effect of personality disorder. Lancet 2015; 385: 717–726CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markon, KEQuilty, LCBagby, RMKrueger, RFThe development and psychometric properties of an informant-report form of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Assessment 2013; 20(3): 370–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Few, LRMiller, JDRothbaum, AOMeller, SMaples, JTerry, DPet al.Examination of the section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. J. Abnorm Psychol 2013; 122(4): 1057–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, DTFiske, DWConvergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56(2): 81–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bach et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Bach et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 396.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Bach et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Bach et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 97.9 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Bach et al. supplementary material

Table S2

Download Bach et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 66 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Bach et al. supplementary material

Table S3

Download Bach et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 47 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Bach et al. supplementary material

Table S4

Download Bach et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 41.5 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.