Advertisement

Current Directions in Psychiatric Classification: From the DSM to RDoC

  • Björn N. PerssonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Clinical Neuroscience book series (CCNE)

Abstract

In 2010, the National Institute of Mental Health initiated the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), a new research framework for studying mental disorders. The RDoC is predicated on that psychiatric disorders are fundamentally disorders of the brain, which are best conceptualized as dimensional, and not discrete, phenomena. The RDoC approach stands in contrast to the more traditional Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which relies on discrete diagnostic categories such that patients either meet diagnostic criteria or not. The present chapter has three explicit aims: (a) to describe the conceptualization of personality disorders (PDs) from DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Author, Washington, DC, 1980) and forward, including the differences between categorical and dimensional models of psychopathology; (b) to present some of the fundamental differences between the DSM-5 and RDoC perspectives; and (c) to describe challenges for the RDoC framework along with a possible alternative to it, namely, the network approach to psychological disorders.

Keywords

Psychiatric classification Nosology DSM RDoC Network psychometrics Personality disorder Psychopathology 

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, C. M., & Miller, M. B. (2010). How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 133–155.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blashfield, R. K. (1984). The classification of psychopathology: Neo-Kraepelinian and quantitative approaches. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  7. Blashfield, R. K., Keeley, J. W., Flanagan, E. H., & Miles, S. R. (2014). The cycle of classification: DSM-I through DSM-5. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 25–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Borsboom, D., & Cramer, A. O. (2013). Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O., Schmittmann, V. D., Epskamp, S., & Waldorp, L. J. (2011). The small world of psychopathology. PLoS One, 6, e27407.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Borsboom, D., Kievit, R. A., Cervone, D., & Hood, S. B. (2009). The two disciplines of scientific psychology, or: The disunity of psychology as a working hypothesis. In J. Valsiner, P. C. M. Molenaar, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & N. Chaudhary (Eds.), Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 97–67). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110, 203–219.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Borsboom, D., Rhemtulla, M., Cramer, A., Van der Maas, H., Scheffer, M., & Dolan, C. (2016). Kinds versus continua: A review of psychometric approaches to uncover the structure of psychiatric constructs. Psychological Medicine, 46, 1567–1579.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Carcone, D., & Ruocco, A. C. (2017). Six years of research on the national institute of mental health’s research domain criteria (RDoC) initiative: A systematic review. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 11(46), 1–8.Google Scholar
  15. Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., … Moffitt, T. E. (2014). The p factor: one general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2(2), 119–137.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. New York, NY: World Book Company.Google Scholar
  17. Cicchetti, D., & Blender, J. A. (2004). A multiple-levels-of-analysis approach to the study of developmental processes in maltreated children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 17325–17326.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2009). The past achievements and future promises of developmental psychopathology: The coming of age of a discipline. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 16–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants: A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573–588.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Conway, C. C., Latzman, R. D., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). A meta-structural model of common clinical disorder and personality disorder symptoms. Journal of Personality Disorders. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  22. Cooper, L. D., Balsis, S., & Zimmerman, M. (2010). Challenges associated with a polythetic diagnostic system: Criteria combinations in the personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 886–895.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Cooper, S. R., Jackson, J. J., Barch, D. M., & Braver, T. S. (2019). Neuroimaging of individual differences: A latent variable modeling perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 98, 29–46.Google Scholar
  24. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2017). The NEO inventories as instruments of psychological theory. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 11–37). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Borsboom, D. (2010). Comorbidity: A network perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 137–193.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09991567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.Google Scholar
  27. Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2010). The data of diagnosis: New approaches to psychiatric classification. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 73, 311–314.Google Scholar
  28. Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2013). Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: The seven pillars of RDOC. BMC Medicine, 11, 126.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Cuthbert, B. N., & Kozak, M. J. (2013). Constructing constructs for psychopathology: The NIMH research domain criteria. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 928–937.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the big five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–1151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Enkavi, A. Z., Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Mazza, G. L., MacKinnon, D. P., Marsch, L. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2019). Large-scale analysis of test–retest reliabilities of self-regulation measures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 5472–5477.Google Scholar
  34. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. on predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126.Google Scholar
  35. Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  36. First, M. B. (2014). Empirical grounding versus innovation in the DSM-5 revision process: Implications for the future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21, 262–268.Google Scholar
  37. Frances, A. (2009). A warning sign on the road to DSM-V: Beware of its unintended consequences. Psychiatric Times, 26, 1–4.Google Scholar
  38. Fried, E. I., & Cramer, A. O. J. (2017). Moving forward: Challenges and directions for psychopathological network theory and methodology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 999–1020.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Friedman, L., Stern, H., Brown, G. G., Mathalon, D. H., Turner, J., Glover, G. H., … Greve, D. N. (2008). Test–retest and between-site reliability in a multicenter fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 29(8), 958–972.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Gottesman, I. I., & Gould, T. D. (2003). The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: Etymology and strategic intentions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 636–645.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 167–187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Gunderson, J. G. (2013). Seeking clarity for future revisions of the personality disorders in DSM-5. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 368–376.Google Scholar
  44. Hajcak, G., Meyer, A., & Kotov, R. (2017). Psychometrics and the neuroscience of individual differences: Internal consistency limits between-subjects effects. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 823–834.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Haslam, N., Holland, E., & Kuppens, P. (2012). Categories versus dimensions in personality and psychopathology: A quantitative review of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 42, 903–920.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1166–1186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Hengartner, M., Ajdacic-Gross, V., Wyss, C., Angst, J., & Rössler, W. (2016). Relationship between personality and psychopathology in a longitudinal community study: A test of the predisposition model. Psychological Medicine, 46, 1693–1705.Google Scholar
  48. Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., Wright, A. G., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). DSM-5 personality traits and DSM-IV personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 424–432.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Huettel, S. A., Song, A. W., & McCarthy, G. (2009). Functional magnetic resonance imaging. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Sunderland.Google Scholar
  50. Iacono, W. G., Malone, S. M., & Vrieze, S. I. (2017). Endophenotype best practices. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 111, 115–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Insel, T. R., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., … Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748–751.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Kendler, K. S., Aggen, S., Gillespie, N., Neale, M., Knudsen, G., Krueger, R. F., … Reichborn-Kjennerud, T. (2017). The genetic and environmental sources of resemblance between normative personality and personality disorder traits. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 193–207.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., et al. (2017). The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HITOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477.Google Scholar
  54. Kozak, M. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2016). The NIMH research domain criteria initiative: Background, issues, and pragmatics. Psychophysiology, 53, 286–297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Krueger, R. F. (2013). Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 355–362.Google Scholar
  56. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Krueger, R. F., Kotov, R., Watson, D., Forbes, M. K., Eaton, N. R., Ruggero, C. J., … Bagby, R. M. (2018). Progress in achieving quantitative classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 17, 282–293.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014a). DSM-5: Centripetal scientific and centrifugal antiscientific forces. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21, 269–279.Google Scholar
  60. Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014b). The research domain criteria (RDoC): An analysis of methodological and conceptual challenges. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 62, 129–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., & Watts, A. L. (2013). Issues in diagnosis: Conceptual issues and controversies. In W. E. Craighead, D. J. Miklowitz, & L. W. Craighead (Eds.), Psychopathology: History, diagnosis, and empirical foundations (2nd ed., pp. 1–35). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  62. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Treadway, M. T. (2016). Clashing diagnostic approaches: DSM-ICD versus RDoC. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 435–463.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Livesley, J. (2012). Tradition versus empiricism in the current DSM-5 proposal for revising the classification of personality disorders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 22, 81–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Lord, F. M. (1953). On the statistical treatment of football numbers. American Psychologist, 8, 750–751.Google Scholar
  65. Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  66. Luking, K. R., Nelson, B. D., Infantolino, Z. P., Sauder, C. L., & Hajcak, G. (2017). Internal consistency of functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography measures of reward in late childhood and early adolescence. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 2, 289–297.Google Scholar
  67. Markon, K. E. (2013). Epistemological pluralism and scientific development: an argument against authoritative nosologies. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(5), 554–579.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Markon, K. E., Chmielewski, M., & Miller, C. J. (2011). The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: A quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 856–879.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences in kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117–174.Google Scholar
  72. Melchers, M., Montag, C., Markett, S., & Reuter, M. (2015). Assessment of empathy via self-report and behavioural paradigms: Data on convergent and discriminant validity. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 20(2), 157–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Miller, G. A., Rockstroh, B. S., Hamilton, H. K., & Yee, C. M. (2016). Psychophysiology as a core strategy in RDoC. Psychophysiology, 53, 410–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2013). Missed opportunities in the DSM-5 Section III personality disorder model: Commentary on “Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era”. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 365–366.Google Scholar
  75. Molenaar, P. C., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 112–117.Google Scholar
  76. Morey, L. C., Krueger, R. F., & Skodol, A. E. (2013). The hierarchical structure of clinician ratings of proposed DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 836–841.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Morey, L. C., Skodol, A. E., & Oldham, J. M. (2014). Clinician judgments of clinical utility: A comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123, 398–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Mõttus, R., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., & McCrae, R. (2017). Personality traits below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 474–490.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Lengel, G. J., & DeShong, H. L. (2016). The importance of considering clinical utility in the construction of a diagnostic manual. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 133–155.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the big one in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213–1233.Google Scholar
  81. National Institute of Mental Health. (2017). RDoC Matrix. Retrieved October 8, 2017, from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/definitions-of-the-rdoc-domains-and-constructs.shtml
  82. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Palminteri, S., & Chevallier, C. (2018). Can we infer inter-individual differences in risk-taking from behavioural tasks? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2307.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Patrick, C. J., Venables, N. C., Yancey, J. R., Hicks, B. M., Nelson, L. D., & Kramer, M. D. (2013). A construct-network approach to bridging diagnostic and physiological domains: Application to assessment of externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 902–916.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  86. Pfohl, B., Coryell, W., Zimmerman, M., & Stangl, D. (1986). DSM-III personality disorders: Diagnostic overlap and internal consistency of individual DSM-III criteria. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 27, 21–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Pincus, A. L. (2013). In through the out door: A commentary on “Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era”. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 363–364.Google Scholar
  88. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Rossiter, J. R. (2005). Reminder: A horse is a horse. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 23–25.Google Scholar
  90. Rushton, J. P., & Irwing, P. (2008). A general factor of personality (GFP) from two meta-analyses of the Big Five: Digman (1997) and Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005). Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 679–683.Google Scholar
  91. Sarter, M., Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Brain imaging and cognitive neuroscience: Toward strong inference in attributing function to structure. American Psychologist, 51, 13–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Schmittmann, V. D., Cramer, A. O., Waldorp, L. J., Epskamp, S., Kievit, R. A., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Deconstructing the construct: A network perspective on psychological phenomena. New Ideas in Psychology, 31, 43–53.Google Scholar
  93. Sharma, L., Markon, K. E., & Clark, L. A. (2014). Toward a theory of distinct types of “impulsive” behaviors: A meta-analysis of self-report and behavioral measures. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 374–408.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Skodol, A. E., Morey, L. C., Bender, D. S., & Oldham, J. M. (2013). The ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 342–349.Google Scholar
  95. Spitzer, R. L. (2009). DSM-V transparency: Fact or rhetoric? Psychiatric Times, 26, 8–8.Google Scholar
  96. Suzuki, T., Samuel, D. B., Pahlen, S., & Krueger, R. F. (2015). DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: An item-response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 343–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Tay, L., & Jebb, A. T. (2018). Establishing construct continua in construct validation: the process of continuum specification. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 375–388.Google Scholar
  98. Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment, 20, 308–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Trull, T. J., & Durrett, C. A. (2005). Categorical and dimensional models of personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 355–380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Vachon, D. D., Lynam, D. R., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). The (non) relation between empathy and aggression: Surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 751–773.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Vaidyanathan, U., Vrieze, S. I., & Iacono, W. G. (2015). The power of theory, research design, and transdisciplinary integration in moving psychopathology forward. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 209–230.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Verheul, R. (2012). Personality disorder proposal for DSM-5: A heroic and innovative but nevertheless fundamentally flawed attempt to improve DSM-IV. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19, 369–371.Google Scholar
  103. Verheul, R., & Widiger, T. A. (2004). A meta-analysis of the prevalence and usage of the personality disorder not otherwise specified (pdnos) diagnosis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 309–319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Wakefield, J. C. (2014). Wittgenstein’s nightmare: Why the RDoC grid needs a conceptual dimension. World Psychiatry, 13, 38–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  105. Widiger, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2000). Toward DSM-V and the classification of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 946–963.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Widiger, T. A., & Crego, C. (2015). Process and content of DSM-5. Psychopathology Review, 2, 162–176.Google Scholar
  107. Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. (1985). The DSM-III personality disorders: Perspectives from psychology. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 615–623.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Widiger, T. A., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2009). Five-factor model of personality disorder: A proposal for DSM-V. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 197–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 110–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 71–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Wright, A. G., Gates, K., Arizmendi, C., Lane, S., Woods, W., & Edershile, E. A. (2017). Focusing personality assessment on the person: Modeling general, shared, and person specific processes in personality and psychopathology. Retrieved from osf.io/nf5me
  112. Wright, A. G., & Simms, L. J. (2014). On the structure of personality disorder traits: Conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 43–54.Google Scholar
  113. Young, G., Lareau, C., & Pierre, B. (2014). One quintillion ways to have PTSD comorbidity: Recommendations for the disordered DSM-5. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 61–74.Google Scholar
  114. Zachar, P. (2013). Abandoning official psychiatric nosologies: A cure that may be worse than the disease: A commentary on Markon. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(5), 594–599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Zachar, P., & Kendler, K. S. (2017). The philosophy of nosology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 49–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Zachar, P., Krueger, R. F., & Kendler, K. S. (2016). Personality disorder in DSM-5: An oral history. Psychological Medicine, 46, 1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive Neuroscience and PhilosophyUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  3. 3.Blekinge Center of Competence, Region BlekingeKarlskronaSweden

Personalised recommendations