Emily N. Vanderbleek

Background: Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) in DSM-5's Section-III has demonstrated acceptable interrater reliability, a largely consistent latent structure, substantial correlations with theoretically and clinically relevant measures, and evidence for incremental concurrent and predictive validity after controlling for DSM-5's Section II categorical personality disorders (PDs). However, the AMPD is not yet widely used clinically. One clinician concern may be caseness – that the new model will diagnose a different set of PD patients from that with which they are familiar. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether this concern is valid, by testing how well the two models converge in terms of prevalence and coverage.Method: Participants were 305 psychiatric outpatients and 302 community residents not currently in mental-health treatment who scored above threshold on the Iowa Personality Disorder Screen (Langbehn et al., 1999). Participants were administered a semi-structured interview for DSM-5 PD, which was scored for both Section II and III PDs.Results: Convergence across the two PD models was variable for specific PDs, Good when specific PDs were aggregated, and Very Good for ‘any PD.’Conclusions: Results provide strong evidence that the AMPD yields the same overall prevalence of PD as the current model and, further, identifies largely the same overall population. It also addresses well-known problems of the current model, is more consistent with the ICD-11 PD model, and provides more complete, individualized characterizations of persons with PD, thereby offering multiple reasons for its implementation in clinical settings.

Background: Many studies have found clear correspondence among the domains of the five-factor model of personality (FFM) and the alter-native model of personality disorders (AMPD) in DSM-5-III, which is assessed with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). However, very few studies have compared the PID-5 with the other well-known established dimensional models of personality such as Cloninger’s model. The present study examined whether the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI-125) dimensions, PID-5 dimensions, or a combination would represent PD-scale scores more accurately.Participants and procedure: In this regard, 437 college students completed the Persian version of the PID-5, TCI-125 and SCID-II Screening Questionnaire.Results: The results indicated that cooperativeness (low), self-directedness (low), and self-transcendence (high) characters of the TCI-125 and the psychoticism (high) domain of the PID-5 are the most consistent predictors of all PD-scale scores.Conclusions: Overall, the findings showed that an integrative model, combining dimensions of the TCI-125 and PID-5, represented the fea-tures of PD-scale scores most effectively.