Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2020
  • Online publication date: February 2020

14a - The Clinical Utility and Applications of Dimensional Assessments of Personality Pathology: Commentary on Methods and Current Issues in Dimensional Assessments of Personality Pathology

from Part IV - Assessment

Summary

Evans et al. (this volume) reviewed prominent dimensional measures of personality, discussed the clinical usefulness of these measures, and provided an overview of personality assessment issues. This commentary focuses on the clinical utility and applications of personality traits and assessment, as well as factors relevant to bridging the research-to-practice gap. In order to adequately disseminate and implement evidence-based personality assessments into practice, personality pathology researchers should be taking active steps to move the empirical base (e.g., validated models of personality, evidence-based assessments, aspects of clinical utility) into application. The process of translating these traits and measures into practice may include assessing barriers to use among practitioners, addressing matters of acceptability and feasibility, and providing training and consultation to practitioners. The authors review benefits of including adaptive traits in assessment and practice (e.g., assist with collaborative treatment planning, decrease stigma), provide commentary on the incremental utility of dysfunction including the use of external correlates, and outline the importance of bipolarity of dimensional trait measures.

Bernstein, D. B., Iscan, C., Maser, J., & Boards of the Directors of ARPD and ISSPD (2007). Opinions of personality disorder experts regarding the DSM-IV personality disorders classification system. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 536551.
Blais, M. A. (1997). Clinician ratings of the five-factor model of personality and the DSM-IV personality disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185, 388393.
Blais, M. A. (2010). The common structure of normal personality and psychopathology: Preliminary exploration in a non-patient sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 322326.
Crego, C., Oltmanns, J. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2018). FFMPD scales: Comparisons with the FFM, PID-5, and CAT-PD-SF. Psychological Assessment, 30, 6273.
Creswell, K. G., Bachrach, R. L., Wright, A. G., Pinto, A., & Ansell, E. (2016). Predicting problematic alcohol use with the DSM-5 alternative model of personality pathologyPersonality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment7(1), 103111.
Griffin, S. A., Suzuki, T., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., Widiger, T. A., Miller, J. D., & Samuel, D. B. (2018). Development and examination of the Five-Factor Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory–Short FormAssessment25(1), 5668.
Lengel, G. J., Helle, A. C., DeShong, H. L., Meyer, N. A., & Mullins‐Sweatt, S. N. (2016). Translational applications of personality science for the conceptualization and treatment of psychopathology. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 23(3), 288308.
Lengel, G. J., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2017). The importance and acceptability of general and maladaptive personality trait computerized assessment feedbackPsychological Assessment29(1), 112.
Liggett, J., Sellbom, M., & Carmichael, K. L. (2017). Examining the DSM-5 section III criteria for obsessive-compulsive personality disorder in a community sampleJournal of Personality Disorders31(6), 790809.
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, 398405.
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, 133155.
Roche, M. J. (2018). Examining the alternative model of personality disorder in daily life: Evidence for incremental validityPersonality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9(6), 574583.
Samuel, D. B., Sanislow, C. A., Hopwood, C. J., Shea, M. T., Skodol, A. E., Morey, L. C., … & Grilo, C. M. (2013). Convergent and incremental predictive validity of clinician, self-report, and structured interview diagnoses for personality disorders over 5 yearsJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology81(4), 650659.
Samuel, D. B., Suzuki, T., Bucher, M. A., & Griffin, S. A. (2018). The agreement between clients’ and their therapists’ ratings of personality disorder traitsJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology86(6), 546555.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2004). Clinicians’ personality descriptions of prototypic personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 286308.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). Clinicians’ judgments of clinical utility: A comparison of the DSM-IV and five-factor models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 298308.
Verheul, R. (2005). Clinical utility of dimensional models for personality pathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 283302.
Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (2012). Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: The five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 80, 14711506.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 7183.
Wygant, D. B., Sellbom, M., Sleep, C. E., Wall, T. D., Applegate, K. C., Krueger, R. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2016). Examining the DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model operationalization of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in a male correctional samplePersonality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment7(3), 229239.