ABSTRACT The introduction of the DSM‐5's AMPD and the ICD‐11 PD model are demonstrative of a shift in personality disorder classification from the more traditional categorical taxonomy to dimensional diagnostic approaches. The two models possess a number of similarities, however, are also substantially different in terms of the AMPD's hybrid nature and facet structure, in addition to disparity between the anankastia and psychoticism trait domains. This narrative review attempted to ascertain whether there is convergence between the two models, in addition to improving upon previous meta‐analytical work done on the subject, by synthesizing the findings from 32 studies and examining their findings as well as their methodological quality. Similar to previous work, correlational findings from studies within the review seemed to suggest potential convergence between the two models. However, potential alternate explanations for the moderate‐to‐large effect size correlations are given. Additionally, this review's expanded look at methodological factors and other types of analyses revealed evidence which does not support convergence. Overall, the findings of the studies in this review hamper the ability to conclude that there is in fact convergence between the two models. The results of this review provide pertinent clinical and research implications, in addition to producing avenues for further research aimed at improved investigation of convergence between the AMPD and ICD‐11 PD model.
ABSTRACT Early adaptive schemas (EASs) are a recent extension of schema theory, conceptualized as positive cognitive‐emotional patterns that arise when core psychological needs are consistently met during early development. Although early maladaptive schemas (EMSs) have been extensively linked to psychopathology, empirical research on EASs remains comparatively limited. Our study aimed to validate the Young Positive Schema Questionnaire (YPSQ) in a nonclinical Romanian sample ( N = 1309). The original 14‐factor structure showed excellent fit, the YPSQ subscales demonstrated adequate to good internal consistency, and construct validity was supported by theoretically consistent associations with EMSs, personality traits, psychological well‐being, and psychological distress. As hypothesized, EASs were negatively associated with irrational beliefs and positively associated with rational beliefs, extending evidence on the construct validity of EASs to cognitive constructs derived from rational emotive behavior therapy. Exploratory hierarchical regression analyses further indicated that EASs explained additional, although modest, variance in depression, stress, and anxiety beyond EMSs, providing evidence of incremental validity. Overall, the findings support the Romanian YPSQ as a psychometrically sound measure of EASs and reinforce the value of assessing adaptive schemas alongside maladaptive schemas. Further longitudinal and moderation‐based research is needed to clarify whether EASs contribute prospectively to resilience or buffer the effects of risk factors on psychological distress.
ABSTRACT An individual patient meta‐analysis was carried out to investigate the impact of the four levels of severity of ICD‐11 personality disorder on the short‐term outcome (12–24 m) of anxiety and depressive symptoms and social function in 1384 patients included in four randomised trials in which psychological treatments, mainly linked to cognitive‐behaviour therapy, were compared with standard controls. In each of these trials, a proxy form of the ICD‐11 classification system was used to assess personality status. The results showed that in those with more severe personality pathology, mood symptomatology was greater and showed a consistent linear trend with normal personality showing the least pathology and severe personality the most. Improvement in anxiety symptoms was significantly less in those with moderate and severe personality disorder compared with those with no personality disorder. Depressive symptoms did not show the same changes except in one trial. Social function improved in all patients in the studies. Treatment effects were small and not significantly different. The findings give some support to the dimensional system of classifying personality disorder and confirmed that all levels of personality dysfunction, including the sub‐syndromal condition of personality difficulty, have an impact on mental health symptomatology and function. Suggestions for improving the utility of the classification are made. In particular, the domain structure appears to have a major influence on clinical outcomes.
ABSTRACT The Guideline‐Informed Treatment for Personality Disorders—Adolescent version (GITPD‐A) is an accessible, general approach to treating personality disorders (PDs) in adolescents. This study assessed the feasibility of the intervention and of a multicentre research design, as a preliminary step towards larger, better‐controlled trials. A one‐group pretest–posttest design was used across five mental healthcare institutions. Eligible participants were adolescents aged 12–18 meeting threshold criteria for a PD under the DSM‐5 alternative model. Participants (91.9% female; mean age 15.9 years) received GITPD‐A for 6 months. Intervention feasibility was evaluated via paired‐samples t ‐tests on pre‐ and posttest scores. Feasibility of the multicentre design was assessed by eligibility and enrolment rates, measure completion and study dropout. Significant improvement was found for pathological personality traits (PID‐5), with a medium effect size (Hedges' g = 0.50). Secondary outcomes showed significant reductions in depression, anxiety, emotion dysregulation and symptoms of borderline PD. Participants reported high satisfaction ( M = 8.1). Following a broad screening process involving 245 participants, 65 were found to be eligible. Of these, 47 adolescents took part in the study overall, with 38 completing the intervention. The treatment dropout rate was 19.1% ( n = 9). Despite the limited sample, preliminary findings support the feasibility of GITPD‐A for adolescents with emerging PD, showing high acceptability, satisfaction, retention and acceptance of scientific assessments. Selected measures appear suitable for detecting intervention‐related changes. However, a different primary outcome and improved screening strategies may be needed.
ABSTRACT We examined the factor structure and convergent validity of the Developmental Profile Inventory (DPI), a self‐report assessing psychodynamic personality functioning. The DPI is based on the Developmental Profile model, which integrates psychodynamic theories into a hierarchical developmental framework conceptualizing personality functioning in nine adaptive and maladaptive developmental levels. Each level comprises the following three domains: self, interpersonal functioning, and problem‐solving strategies. We used a Norwegian community sample consisting primarily of university and college students spanning a broad age range. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the structural validity of the Norwegian DPI: The nine‐factor structure showed acceptable absolute fit and adequate factor loadings, with subthreshold incremental fit index, consistent with the results of the original Dutch validation study. Internal consistency was generally adequate. The scales demonstrated theoretically coherent convergent and discriminant validity, particularly in distinguishing maladaptive from adaptive personality functioning. The six maladaptive scales demonstrated strong to very strong associations with the DSM‐5 alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) Levels of Personality Functioning Scale. In contrast, the three adaptive DPI scales had only moderate associations with AMPD impairment in personality functioning but showed meaningful associations with other measures of adaptive functioning. Finally, the DPI scales demonstrated divergent validity relative to personality trait measures, supporting the contemporary distinction between personality functioning and dispositional personality traits. These findings provide preliminary evidence regarding the DPI's factor structure and relations with external measures.
