Initial Construction of a Maladaptive Personality Trait Model and Inventory for DSM-5

By Robert Krueger, J. Derringer, Kristian E. Markon, D. Watson, A. Skodol. Psychological Medicine, 2011

1,627 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Background 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. Method 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). Results 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. Conclusions 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.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1ae50bcf7469c29ea316be4ebf01fc6dca960bfc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Psychiatry and Mental health

Citations in the corpus

Interpersonal Dynamics in Personality and Personality Disorders (2018, methodology): “The Big Five traits sit at an intermediary level of this hierarchy.”
DSM-5 and the Path Toward Empirically Based and Clinically Useful Conceptualization of Personality and Psychopathology (2014, positive): “The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012) was created to operationalize the DSM-5 model of pathological personality variants.”
The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A Dimensional Alternative to Traditional Nosologies (2017, neutral): “The most recent efforts to map personality pathology are the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012) and the Computerized Adaptive Test of Personality Disorder (CAT-PD; Simms et al., 2011).”
Perfectionism and narcissism: A meta-analytic review (2016, background): “personality disorder subscale of Livesley et al.’s (1992) Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology; PID-5-NP = narcissistic personality subscale of Krueger et al.”
The Dark Side of Personality: Science and Practice in Social, Personality, and Clinical Psychology (2016, positive): “This can be readily seen by our decision to include sections concerning negative affectivity, antagonism, and disinhibition which are all considered to be pathological personality trait domains in the model that is included in DSM–5 (Krueger et al., 2012).”
The Circumplex of Personality Metatraits: A Synthesizing Model of Personality Based on the Big Five (2014, background): “…this pathological potential is clearly stronger in the case of high Neuroticism and low levels of Extraversion, Intellect/Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, especially when they are considered together (cf. Krueger et al., 2012; Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005; Widiger & Costa, 2013).”