Search

The Level of Personality Functioning - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) is a 12-item self-report questionnaire developed to gain a quick impression of the severity of personality pathology according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). The current study evaluated the construct validity and reliability of the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in a large clinical sample (N = 1673). Dimensionality was examined using confirmatory factor analysis and bifactor analysis followed by an analysis of distinctiveness of the subscales using the proportional reduction in mean squared error (PRMSE), and the concurrent validity was examined using correlations with self-report questionnaires and clinical interviews assessing PDs according to section II of the DSM-5. Taking the findings of the dimensionality and concurrent validity results together, we found moderate to good support for the use of total scores for the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0. We would advise against the use of subscale scores, since the subscales provided only a small amount of reliable unique variance.

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) includes two main criteria: moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and the presence of one or more pathological personality traits (Criterion B). The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental utility of Criteria A and B for predicting DSM-5 Section II personality disorders (PD). The sample (N = 317) consisted of three well-defined groups: non-clinical participants (n = 35), psychiatric patients with PD (n = 193), and without PD (n = 83). All were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I): Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Logistic regression analyses showed that the SCID-5-AMPD-I could predict the presence of PDs in general, and the three specific PDs that were investigated (i.e., Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs). The PID-5 domains enhanced prediction of the specific PDs, but not the presence of PDs in general, when entered in the second step. Our results support the AMPD model: Criterion A predicted the presence of DSM-5 Section II PDs in general, whereas measures of Criterion B incremented prediction of Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs.

Currently, 3 competing conceptualizations of personality dysfunction can be distinguished: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ( DSM-5 ) categorical model delineating 10 distinct types of personality disorders (PDs); the alternative model for PDs ( DSM-5 Section III), which assesses personality functioning and traits separately; and the International Classification of Diseases , 11 th Version conceptualization, which provides 1 single code for the presence of a PD (which is based on problems in functioning) as well as codes that specify the level of the disorder (mild/moderate/severe), and prominent trait domains or patterns (5 domains and 1 pattern). The current study aims to assess the incremental value of the DSM-5 PDs over and above a global personality dysfunction factor, using expert ratings obtained with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV PDs and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 PDs interview in a large sample of clinical patients ( N = 3,851). All estimated bifactor models provided adequate fit to the data. We found a surprisingly low explained common variance for the g-factor (<40%), indicating that ignoring the specific PD factors would lead to a substantial loss of information. The strongest specific PDs in terms of explained common variance were the avoidant, schizotypal, and schizoid PD factors and the conduct disorder criteria set if included. Correlations between our factors and external variables were relatively low, except for the Severity Indices of Personality Problems , which aims to measure personality functioning. Our findings suggest that specific PDs still have an important role to play in the assessment of personality pathology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The current study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I) assessing the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) in a heterogeneous sample of 282 nonpsychotic patients. Latent variable models were used to investigate the dimensionality of the LPFS. The results indicate that the LPFS, as assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD-I, can be considered as a unidimensional construct that can be measured reliably across a wide range of the latent trait. Threshold parameters for the 12 indicators of the LPFS increased gradually over the latent scale, indicating that the five LPFS levels were ordered as predicted by the model. In general, the increase of threshold parameters was relatively small for the shift from Level 2 to Level 3. A better distinction among the different severity levels might be obtained by fine-tuning the interview guidelines or the Level 2 indicators themselves.

The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), defines personality functioning by assessment of impairment in Identity and Self-direction (Self component) and in Empathy and Intimacy (Interpersonal). These four domains constitute the Level of Personality Functioning Scale, a trans-diagnostic measure of PD severity. The association between the Level of Personality Functioning Scale and psychosocial impairment based on other previously established psychosocial functioning instruments has not been reported. A total of 317 individuals, including a representative clinical sample of 282 patients (192 with a personality disorder [PD] diagnosis), was evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 AMPD Module I. Self-reported impairment was measured by the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), and social and occupational impairment was assessed by the functioning score of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF-F). WSAS and GAF-F both correlated significantly with mean LPFS scores and the sum of DSM-IV PD criteria. For both measures, the mean LPFS was a stronger predictor for psychosocial impairment than the sum of DSM-IV PD criteria. Within the LPFS, the Self component was a better predictor than the Interpersonal component for both WSAS and GAF-F. For the four domains, the results diverged, with Identity as the strongest predictor by far for WSAS. Empathy was the only significant predictor for impairment evaluated by GAF-F, but its contribution to variance was not substantial. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) presents an alternative model for personality disorders in which severity of personality pathology is evaluated by the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The Structured Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders, Module I (SCID-5-AMPD I) is a new tool for LPFS assessment, but its interrater reliability (IRR) has not yet been tested. Here we examined the reliability of the Norwegian translation of the SCID-5-AMPD I, applying two different designs: IRR assessment based on ratings of 17 video-recorded SCID-5-AMPD I interviews by five raters; and test-retest IRR based on interviews of 33 patients administered by two different raters within a short interval. For the video-based investigation, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranged from .77 to .94 for subdomains, .89 to .95 for domains, and .96 for total LPFS. For the test-retest investigation, ICC ranged from .24 to .72 for subdomains, .59 to .90 for domains, and .75 for total LPFS. The test-retest study revealed questionable reliability estimates for some subdomains. However, overall the level of personality functioning was measured with a sufficient degree of IRR when assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD I.

Background: Although psychotherapy is considered the treatment of choice for patients with personality disorders (PDs), there is no consensus about the optimal level of care for this group of patients. This study reports the results from the 6-year follow-up of the Ullevål Personality Project (UPP), a randomized clinical trial comparing outpatient individual psychotherapy with a long-term step-down treatment program that included a short-term day hospital treatment followed by combined group and individual psychotherapy., Methods: The UPP included 113 patients with PDs. Outcome was evaluated after 8 months, 18 months, 3 years and 6 years and was based on a wide range of clinical measures, such as psychosocial functioning, interpersonal problems, symptom severity, and axis I and II diagnoses., Results: At the 6-year follow-up, there were no statistically significant differences in outcome between the treatment groups. Effect sizes ranged from medium to large for all outcome variables in both treatment arms. However, patients in the outpatient group had a marked decline in psychosocial functioning during the period between the 3- and 6-year follow-ups; while psychosocial functioning continued to improve in the step-down group during the same period. This difference between groups was statistically significant., Conclusions: The findings suggest that both hospital-based long-term step-down treatment and long-term outpatient individual psychotherapy may improve symptoms and psychosocial functioning in poorly functioning PD patients. Social and interpersonal functioning continued to improve in the step-down group during the post-treatment phase, indicating that longer-term changes were stimulated during treatment., Trial Registration: NCT00378248.

Purpose: The Severity Indices of Personality Problems 118 (SIPP-118) is a self-report questionnaire that aims to measure core components of (mal)adaptive personality functioning that can change over time. In this study, we aimed to assess the facet strength of the 16 facets across three large clinical samples. Methods: Data from Norwegian and Dutch psychiatric patients were analyzed in this international multi-center study (N1 = 2814, N2 = 4751, N3 = 2217). Bi-factor modeling was used to assess to what degree the SIPP items tap into an overall general factor. The incremental value (distinctiveness) of the facets was studied using proportional reduction in mean squared error (PRMSE) based statistics. Results: The estimated model showed adequate fit. The explained common variance (ECV) attributable to the general factor equaled 50% for all three samples. All but two facets (stable self-image and frustration tolerance) showed sufficient levels of distinctiveness. The findings were observed to be comparable across the three samples. Conclusion: Our findings showed that the general factor was relatively weak, and the facets had a clear incremental value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We used item response theory (IRT) to (a) investigate the dimensionality of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) in a severely disturbed patient group, (b) improve the subscales in a meaningful way and (c) investigate the measurement precision of the improved scales. The total sample comprised 3078 patients (72% women, mean age = 35 ± 9) admitted to 14 different day hospitals participating in the Norwegian Network of Personality-focused Treatment Programmes. Mokken Scale Analysis was used to investigate the dimensionality of the SCL-90-R and improve the subscales. This analysis was theory-driven: the scales were built on two start items that reflected the content of the disorder that corresponds with the specific scale. The Graded Response Model was employed to determine measurement precision. Our theory-driven IRT approach resulted in a new seven-factor solution including 60 of the 90 items clustered in seven scales: depression, agoraphobia, physical complaints, obsessive-compulsive, hostility (unchanged), distrust and psychoticism. Most of the new scales discriminated reliably between patients with moderately low scores to moderately high scores. In conclusion, we found support for the multidimensionality of the SCL-90-R in a large sample of severely disturbed patients. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of the study was to investigate associations between patients ratings of their treatment milieu and personal characteristics such as gender, age, educational level, personality disorders, symptom distress, interpersonal problems, global level of functioning, as well as treatment outcome. Data was taken from 908 patients (with mainly personality, mood and anxiety disorders) consecutively admitted to eight day-treatment units. Treatment milieu was measured by Ward Atmosphere Scale for Therapeutic Programs (WAS-TP). Overall level of psychosocial functioning was measured by Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Diagnoses and personality traits was measured by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders (SCID-II), according to DSM-IV. Symptom distress and interpersonal problems was measured by Symptom Checklist 90-R and the Circumplex of Interpersonal Problems, respectively. No substantial associations were found between individual personal characteristics and ratings of the treatment milieu, and no substantial associations were found between ratings of the treatment milieu and treatment outcome or the likelihood of treatment completion. There seems to be no support as to making general inferences about or from individual ratings of the treatment milieu. Possible uses of individual evaluations of treatment milieu are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]