Advertisement

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders and Clinical Treatment: a Review

  • Craig Rodriguez-SeijasEmail author
  • Camilo Ruggero
  • Nicholas R. Eaton
  • Robert F. Krueger
Personality Disorders (M Zimmerman, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Personality Disorders

Abstract

Purpose of review

The goal of the current paper is to review the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), with particular focus on treatment of personality pathology. We briefly outline limitations of the traditional personality disorder diagnostic system, then, review differences between it and the AMPD, and how the alternative model can be applied for intervention planning.

Recent findings

Criterion A of the AMPD refers to the level of self and interpersonal impairment and is required for establishing the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis. Criterion B characterizes the nature of that diagnosis by virtue of maladaptive personality traits. Both criteria have been positioned as having important treatment value, particularly when considered jointly. Several publications illustrate the utility of the AMPD for streamlining assessment, case conceptualization, and treatment.

Summary

The diagnosis of personality disorder with the AMPD provides information with direct utility for case conceptualization and treatment planning. We review the clinical utility of the AMPD. In addition, we highlight limitations in the literature related to the AMPD, with directions for future research aimed at improving understanding of the utility of the AMPD. We further situate our discussion of the AMPD within a broader scientific climate with focus on improvement of both personality and non-personality diagnosis, conceptualization, and treatment.

Keywords

Personality disorders The alternative model for personality disorders Maladaptive personality Personality disorder treatment 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Craig Rodriguez-Seijas declares that he has no conflict of interest. Camilo Ruggero declares that he has no conflict of interest. Nicholas R. Eaton declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Robert F. Krueger is a coauthor of the PID-5 and provides consulting services to aid users of the PID-5 in the interpretation of test scores. PID-5 is the intellectual property of the American Psychiatric Association, and Dr. Krueger does not receive royalties or any other compensation from publication or administration of the inventory.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Krueger RF, Markon KE. The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:477–501.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Publications; 2013Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Zachar P, Krueger R, Kendler K. Personality disorder in DSM-5: an oral history. Psychol Med. 2016;46(1):1–10 For readers interested in understanding a more thorough review of the development and subsequent relegation of the AMPD to Section III of the DSM-5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zeigler-Hill V, Noser AE. Characterizing spitefulness in terms of the DSM-5 model of pathological personality traits. Curr Psychol. 2018;37(1):14–20.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Veith AC, Russell TD, King AR. PID-5 trait mediation of childhood maltreatment effects. Personal Individ Differ. 2017;104:58–63.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fossati A, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Borroni S, Maffei C, Somma A. The DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders from the perspective of adult attachment: a study in community-dwelling adults. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2015;203(4):252–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    James LM, Engdahl BE, Leuthold AC, Krueger RF, Georgopoulos AP. Pathological personality traits modulate neural interactions. Exp Brain Res. 2015;233(12):3543–52.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waugh MH, Hopwood CJ, Krueger RF, Morey LC, Pincus AL, Wright AG. Psychological assessment with the DSM–5 alternative model for personality disorders: tradition and innovation. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2017;48(2):79–89.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morey LC, Benson KT, Busch AJ, Skodol AE. Personality disorders in DSM-5: emerging research on the alternative model. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015;17(4):24.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    •• Hopwood CJ, Mulay AL, Waugh MH. The DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders: integrating multiple paradigms of personality assessment. Routledge; 2019. Hopwood’s, Mulay’s and Waugh’s book contains a more in-depth description of much of the information presented herein. Their book presents additional information on the applicability of the AMPD in clinical practice. In addition, they present in-depth overview of the research literature surrounding the AMPD.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eaton NR, South SC, Krueger RF. The meaning of comorbidity among common mental disorders. In: Millon T, Krueger RF, Simonsen E, editors. Contemporary directions in psychopathology: scientific foundations of the DSM-V and ICD-11. 2nd ed. New York: Guildford Publications; 2010. p. 223–41.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eaton NR, Rodriguez-Seijas C, Carragher N, Krueger RF. Transdiagnostic factors of psychopathology and substance use disorders: a review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2015:1–12.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodriguez-Seijas C, Eaton NR, Krueger RF. How transdiagnostic factors of personality and psychopathology can inform clinical assessment and intervention. J Pers Assess. 2015;97(5):425–35.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hyler SE, Kellman H, Oldham J, Skodol A. Diagnosis of DSM-III-R personality disorders by two structured interviews: patterns of comorbidity. Am J Psychiatr. 1992;149:213–20.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Widiger TA, Trull TJ. Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: shifting to a dimensional model. Am Psychol. 2007;62(2):71–83.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    First MB, Westen D. Classification for clinical practice: how to make ICD and DSM better able to serve clinicians. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2007;19(5):473–81.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Widiger TA, Simonsen E, Krueger R, Livesley WJ, Verheul R. Personality disorder research agenda for the DSM–V. J Personal Disord. 2005;19(3):315–38.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Widiger TA. Official classification systems. In: Handbook of personality disorders: theory, research, and treatment; 2001. p. 60–83.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Verheul R, Widiger TA. A meta-analysis of the prevalence and usage of the personality disorder not otherwise specified (PDNOS) diagnosis. J Personal Disord. 2004;18(4):309–19.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bateman AW, Gunderson J, Mulder R. Treatment of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015;385(9969):735–43.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barlow DH, Allen LB, Choate ML. Toward a unified treatment for emotional disorders. Behav Ther. 2004;35(2):205–30.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharp C, Wright AG, Fowler JC, Frueh BC, Allen JG, Oldham J, et al. The structure of personality pathology: both general (‘g’) and specific (‘s’) factors? J Abnorm Psychol. 2015;124(2):387–98.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kernberg OF. Severe personality disorders: psychotherapeutic strategies. Yale University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bender DS, Morey LC, Skodol AE. Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM–5, part I: a review of theory and methods. J Pers Assess. 2011;93(4):332–46.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pincus AL. An interpersonal perspective on criterion a of the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders. Curr Opin Psychol. 2018;21:11–7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morey LC, Berghuis H, Bender DS, Verheul R, Krueger RF, Skodol AE. Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM–5, part II: empirical articulation of a core dimension of personality pathology. J Pers Assess. 2011;93(4):347–53.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bach B, Markon K, Simonsen E, Krueger RF. Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders: six cases from practice. J Psychiatr Pract. 2015;21(1):3–25.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hopwood CJ, Good EW, Morey LC. Validity of the DSM–5 levels of personality functioning scale–self report. J Pers Assess. 2018;100(6):650–9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wright ZE, Pahlen S, Krueger RF. Genetic and environmental influences on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-(DSM–5) maladaptive personality traits and their connections with normative personality traits. J Abnorm Psychol. 2017;126(4):416–28.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thimm JC, Jordan S, Bach B. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form (PID-5-SF): psychometric properties and association with big five traits and pathological beliefs in a Norwegian population. BMC Psychol. 2016;4(1):61.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kendler KS, Aggen S, Gillespie N, Neale M, Knudsen G, Krueger R, et al. The genetic and environmental sources of resemblance between normative personality and personality disorder traits. J Personal Disord. 2017;31(2):193–207.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sleep CE, Hyatt CS, Lamkin J, Maples-Keller JL, Miller JD. Examining the relations among the DSM–5 alternative model of personality, the five-factor model, and externalizing and internalizing behavior. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2018;9(4):379–84.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE. Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med. 2012;42(9):1879–90.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    DeYoung CG, Carey BE, Krueger RF, Ross SR. Ten aspects of the big five in the personality inventory for DSM–5. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2016;7(2):113–23.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Morey LC, Bender DS, Skodol AE. Validating the proposed diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, severity indicator for personality disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013;201(9):729–35.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Few LR, Miller JD, Rothbaum AO, Meller S, Maples J, Terry DP, et al. Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122(4):1057–69.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hopwood CJ, Thomas KM, Markon KE, Wright AG, Krueger RF. DSM-5 personality traits and DSM–IV personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012;121(2):424–32.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fossati A, Somma A, Borroni S, Maffei C, Markon KE, Krueger RF. Borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder diagnoses from the perspective of the DSM-5 personality traits: a study on Italian clinical participants. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2016;204(12):939–49.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fossati A, Krueger RF, Markon KE, Borroni S, Maffei C. Reliability and validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) predicting DSM-IV personality disorders and psychopathy in community-dwelling Italian adults. Assessment. 2013;20(6):689–708.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Anderson J, Snider S, Sellbom M, Krueger R, Hopwood C. A comparison of the DSM-5 Section II and Section III personality disorder structures. Psychiatry Res. 2014;216(3):363–72.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sellbom M, Sansone RA, Songer DA, Anderson JL. Convergence between DSM-5 Section II and Section III diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014;48(4):325–32.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jopp AM, South SC. Investigating the personality inventory for DSM-5 using self and spouse reports. J Personal Disord. 2015;29(2):193–214.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miller JD, Few LR, Lynam DR, MacKillop J. Pathological personality traits can capture DSM–IV personality disorder types. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2015;6(1):32–40.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fossati A, Somma A, Borroni S, Maffei C, Markon KE, Krueger RF. A head-to-head comparison of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) with the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4) in predicting the general level of personality pathology among community dwelling subjects. J Personal Disord. 2016;30(1):82–94.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liggett J, Sellbom M, Bach B. Continuity between DSM-5 Section II and Section III personality traits for obsessive–compulsive personality disorder. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2018;25(1):144–51.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Liggett J, Sellbom M. Examining the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders operationalization of obsessive–compulsive personality disorder in a mental health sample. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2018;9(5):397–407.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    McClintock AS, McCarrick SM. An examination of dependent personality disorder in the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2017;39(4):635–41.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Watters CA, Bagby RM, Sellbom M. Meta-analysis to derive an empirically based set of personality facet criteria for the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2019;10(2):97–104.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    First MB, Pincus HA, Levine JB, Williams JB, Ustun B, Peele R. Clinical utility as a criterion for revising psychiatric diagnoses. Am J Psychiatr. 2004;161(6):946–54.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Garb HN. Clinical judgment and decision making. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:67–89.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Morey LC, Benson KT. An investigation of adherence to diagnostic criteria, revisited: clinical diagnosis of the DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II personality disorders. J Personal Disord. 2016;30(1):130–44.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Morey LC, Ochoa ES. An investigation of adherence to diagnostic criteria: clinical diagnosis of the DSM-III personality disorders. J Personal Disord. 1989;3(3):180–92.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Blashfield RK, Herkov MJ. Investigating clinician adherence to diagnosis by criteria: a replication of Morey and Ochoa (1989). J Personal Disord. 1996;10(3):219–28.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Regier DA, Narrow WE. Defining clinically significant psychopathology with epidemiologic data. Defining psychopathology in the 21st century DSM–V and beyond. 2002. pp 19–30.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zimmerman M, Chelminski I, Young D, Dalrymple K, Martinez J. Does the presence of one feature of borderline personality disorder have clinical significance? Implications for dimensional ratings of personality disorders. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012;73(1):8–12.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Morey LC, Stagner BH. Narcissistic pathology as core personality dysfunction: comparing the DSM-IV and the DSM-5 proposal for narcissistic personality disorder. J Clin Psychol. 2012;68(8):908–21.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Skodol AE, Morey LC, Bender DS, Oldham JM. The alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders: a clinical application. Am J Psychiatr. 2015;172(7):606–13.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pincus AL, Dowgwillo EA, Greenberg LS. Three cases of narcissistic personality disorder through the lens of the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders. Pract Innov. 2016;1(3):164–77.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    •• Hopwood CJ. A framework for treating DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorder features. Personal Ment Health. 2018;12(2):107–25 Hopwood elaborates on the clinical utility of the AMPD, as well as the ways in which information from the AMPD might be utilized by the practising clinician for treatment decision-making.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Carl JR, Gallagher MW, Sauer-Zavala SE, Bentley KH, Barlow DH. A preliminary investigation of the effects of the unified protocol on temperament. Compr Psychiatry. 2014;55(6):1426–34.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jackson JJ, Hill PL, Payne BR, Roberts BW, Stine-Morrow EA. Can an old dog learn (and want to experience) new tricks? Cognitive training increases openness to experience in older adults. Psychol Aging. 2012;27(2):286–92.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Roberts BW, Luo J, Briley DA, Chow PI, Su R, Hill PL. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychol Bull. 2017;143(2):117–41.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Quilty LC, De Fruyt F, Rolland J-P, Kennedy SH, Rouillon PF, Bagby RM. Dimensional personality traits and treatment outcome in patients with major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord. 2008;108(3):241–50.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hopwood CJ, Zimmermann J, Pincus AL, Krueger RF. Connecting personality structure and dynamics: towards a more evidence-based and clinically useful diagnostic scheme. J Personal Disord. 2015;29(4):431–48.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kealy D, Rasmussen B. Veiled and vulnerable: the other side of grandiose narcissism. Clin Soc Work J. 2012;40(3):356–65.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pincus AL, Cain NM, Wright AG. Narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability in psychotherapy. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2014;5(4):439–43.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shedler J, Beck A, Fonagy P, Gabbard GO, Gunderson J, Kernberg O, et al. Personality disorders in DSM-5. Am J Psychiatr. 2010;167(9):1026–8.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Clarkin JF, Huprich SK. Do DSM-5 personality disorder proposals meet criteria for clinical utility? J Personal Disord. 2011;25(2):192–205.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Livesley WJ. Diagnostic dilemmas in classifying personality disorder. 2003.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Verheul R. Clinical utility of dimensional models for personality pathology. J Personal Disord. 2005;19(3):283–302.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Morey LC, Benson KT. Relating DSM-5 section II and section III personality disorder diagnostic classification systems to treatment planning. Compr Psychiatry. 2016;68:48–55.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Morey L, Skodol A, Oldham J. Clinician judgments of clinical utility: a comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123(2):398–405.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Samuel DB, Suzuki T, Bucher MA, Griffin SA. The agreement between clients’ and their therapists’ ratings of personality disorder traits. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018;86(6):546–55.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bagby RM, Quilty LC, Segal ZV, McBride CC, Kennedy SH, Costa PT Jr. Personality and differential treatment response in major depression: a randomized controlled trial comparing cognitive-behavioural therapy and pharmacotherapy. Can J Psychiatr. 2008;53(6):361–70.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Webb CA, Trivedi MH, Cohen ZD, Dillon DG, Fournier JC, Goer F, et al. Personalized prediction of antidepressant v. placebo response: evidence from the EMBARC study. Psychol Med. 2019;49(7):1118–27.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bagby RM, Gralnick TM, Al-Dajani N, Uliaszek AA. The role of the five-factor model in personality assessment and treatment planning. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2016;23(4):365–81.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Morey L, Benson K, Skodol A. Relating DSM-5 section III personality traits to section II personality disorder diagnoses. Psychol Med. 2016;46(3):647–55.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Clarkin JF, Cain N, Livesley WJ. An integrated approach to treatment of patients with personality disorders. J Psychother Integr. 2015;25(1):3–12.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Horowitz M. Disturbed personality functioning and psychotherapy technique. Psychotherapy. 2013;50(3):438–42.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Porter JS, Risler E. The new alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders: issues and controversies. Res Soc Work Pract. 2014;24(1):50–6.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Williams TF, Simms LJ. Personality disorder models and their coverage of interpersonal problems. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2016;7(1):15–27.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Watson D, Ellickson-Larew S, Stanton K, Levin-Aspenson H. Personality provides a general structural framework for psychopathology: commentary on “translational applications of personality science for the conceptualization and treatment of psychopathology”. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2016;23(3):309–13.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lengel GJ, Helle AC, DeShong HL, Meyer NA, Mullins-Sweatt SN. Translational applications of personality science for the conceptualization and treatment of psychopathology. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2016;23(3):288–308.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    •• Kotov R, Krueger RF, Watson D, Achenbach TM, Althoff RR, Bagby RM, et al. The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): a dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. J Abnorm Psychol. 2017;126(4):454–77 Kotov and colleagues outline the problems with traditional diagnosies, as instantiated in the DSM, and provide an overview of the importance and utility of transdiagostic factors. This school of thought it intimately related to the AMPD concptualization, as well as important future directions discussed in the current manuscript.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Conway CC, Forbes MK, Forbush KT, Fried EI, Hallquist MN, Kotov R, et al. A hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology can transform mental health research. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019;14(3):419–36.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hopwood CJ, Bagby RM, Gralnick T, Ro E, Ruggero C, Mullins-Sweatt S, et al. Integrating psychotherapy with the hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP). J Psychother Integr. 2019.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Markon K. Modeling psychopathology structure: a symptom-level analysis of Axis I and II disorders. Psychol Med. 2010;40(02):273–88.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wright AG, Thomas KM, Hopwood CJ, Markon KE, Pincus AL, Krueger RF. The hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological personality traits. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012;121(4):951–7.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Widiger TA, Bach B, Chmielewski M, Clark LA, DeYoung C, Hopwood CJ, et al. Criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP. J Pers Assess. 2018:1–11.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    •• Bornstein RF. From structure to process: on the integration of AMPD and HiTOP. J Pers Assess. 2018:1–7 Bornstein outlines the ways in which HiTOP and the AMPD can be successfully integrated in the understandin gof personality and non-personality psychopathology. In addition, he discusses important future directions for research with respect to the AMPD within the HiTOP framework.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Maples JL, Carter NT, Few LR, Crego C, Gore WL, Samuel DB, et al. Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: an item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Assess. 2015;27(4):1195–210.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Krueger R, Derringer J, Markon K, Watson D, Skodol A. The personality inventory for DSM-5—brief form (PID-5-BF)—adult. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Bach B, Maples-Keller JL, Bo S, Simonsen E. The 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;7(2):124–35.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Góngora VC, Castro Solano A. Pathological personality traits (DSM-5), risk factors, and mental health. SAGE Open. 2017;7(3):2158244017725129.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Harding KJK, Rush AJ, Arbuckle M, Trivedi MH, Pincus HA. Measurement-based care in psychiatric practice: a policy framework for implementation. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011;72(8):1136–43.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Clark LA. Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:227–57.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Krueger RF, Kotov R, Watson D, Forbes MK, Eaton NR, Ruggero CJ, et al. Progress in achieving quantitative classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry. 2018;17(3):282–93.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Samuel DB, Hopwood CJ, Krueger RF, Thomas KM, Ruggero CJ. Comparing methods for scoring personality disorder types using maladaptive traits in DSM-5. Assessment. 2013;20(3):353–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig Rodriguez-Seijas
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Camilo Ruggero
    • 3
  • Nicholas R. Eaton
    • 1
  • Robert F. Krueger
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Warren Alpert Medical SchoolBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations