ICD-11 Personality Disorders: Utility and Implications of the New Model

DSM-IV-TR suggests that clinicians should assess clinically relevant personality traits that do not necessarily constitute a formal personality disorder (PD), and should note these traits on Axis II, but DSM-IV-TR does not provide a trait model to guide the clinician. Our goal was to provide a provisional trait model and a preliminary corresponding assessment instrument, in our roles as members of the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Workgroup and workgroup advisors. An initial list of specific traits and domains (broader groups of traits) was derived from DSM-5 literature reviews and workgroup deliberations, with a focus on capturing maladaptive personality characteristics deemed clinically salient, including those related to the criteria for DSM-IV-TR PDs. The model and instrument were then developed iteratively using data from community samples of treatment-seeking participants. The analytic approach relied on tools of modern psychometrics (e.g. item response theory models). A total of 25 reliably measured core elements of personality description emerged that, together, delineate five broad domains of maladaptive personality variation: negative affect, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism. We developed a maladaptive personality trait model and corresponding instrument as a step on the path toward helping users of DSM-5 assess traits that may or may not constitute a formal PD. The inventory we developed is reprinted in its entirety in the Supplementary online material, with the goal of encouraging additional refinement and development by other investigators prior to the finalization of DSM-5. Continuing discussion should focus on various options for integrating personality traits into DSM-5.

The nomenclature of personality disorders in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems represents the most radical change in the classification history of personality disorders. A dimensional structure now replaces categorical description. It was argued by the Working Group that only a dimensional system was consistent with the empirical evidence and, in the spirit of clinical utility, the new system is based on two steps. The first step is to assign one of five levels of severity, and the second step is to assign up to five prominent domain traits. There was resistance to this structure from those who feel that categorical diagnosis, particularly of borderline personality disorder, should be retained. After lengthy discussion, described in detail here, there is now an option for a borderline pattern descriptor to be selected as a diagnostic option after severity has been determined.

A major reconceptualization of personality psychopathology has been proposed for DSM-5 that identifies core impairments in personality functioning, pathological personality traits, and prominent pathological personality types. A comprehensive personality assessment consists of four components: levels of personality functioning, personality disorder types, pathological personality trait domains and facets, and general criteria for personality disorder. This four-part assessment focuses attention on identifying personality psychopathology with increasing degrees of specificity, based on a clinician's available time, information, and expertise. In Part I of this two-part article, we describe the components of the new model and present brief theoretical and empirical rationales for each. In Part II, we will illustrate the clinical application of the model with vignettes of patients with varying degrees of personality psychopathology, to show how assessments might be conducted and diagnoses reached.