Criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP

The categorical model of personality disorder classification in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) is highly and fundamentally problematic. Proposed for DSM-5 and provided within Section III (for Emerging Measures and Models) was the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) classification, consisting of Criterion A (self-interpersonal deficits) and Criterion B (maladaptive personality traits). A proposed alternative to the DSM-5 more generally is an empirically based dimensional organization of psychopathology identified as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP; Kotov etal., 2017). HiTOP currently includes, at the highest level, a general factor of psychopathology. Further down are the five domains of detachment, antagonistic externalizing, disinhibited externalizing, thought disorder, and internalizing (along with a provisional sixth somatoform dimension) that align with Criterion B. The purpose of this article is to discuss the potential inclusion and placement of the self-interpersonal deficits of the DSM-5 Section III Criterion A within HiTOP

Retention or deletion of personality disorder diagnoses in the DSM-V: An Expert Consensus Approach

One of the official proposals for the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) diagnostic manual (DSM-5) is to delete half of the existing personality disorders (i.e., dependent, histrionic, narcissistic, paranoid, and schizoid). Within the APA guidelines for DSM-5 decisions, it is stated that there should be expert consensus agreement for the deletion of a diagnostic category. Additionally, categories to be deleted should have low clinical utility and/or minimal evidence for validity. The current study surveyed members of two personality disorder associations (n = 146) with respect to the utility, validity, and status of each DSM-IV-TR personality disorder diagnosis. Findings indicated that the proposal to delete five of the personality disorders lacks consensus support within the personality disorder community

Dimensions of personality: clinicians' perspectives

Objective: To obtain the opinions and preferences of practising clinicians about the clinical utility of personality scales included within 8 alternative dimensional models of personality disorder for inclusion within an official diagnostic nomenclature. Method: Psychiatrists (n = 226) and psychologists (n = 164) from 2 continents provided clinical utility ratings on personality scales organized from 8 alternative dimensional models of personality disorder. Results: The psychiatrists and the psychologists supported the inclusion of most of the scales from all 8 of the models that were compared. Normal personality traits were endorsed, although abnormal personality traits generally received higher levels of endorsement. The list of endorsed traits was reduced further by organizing the scales into groups based on redundancy within each of 5 broad domains and then selecting within each group the scale that received the highest rating. Conclusions: This list appears to represent each domain in a manner that is comprehensive both in its coverage of the respective domain, as well as in representing particular strengths of each of the alternative dimensional models, at least for the stated preferences of psychiatrists and psychologists

Redefining phenotypes to advance psychiatric genetics: Implications from hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology

Stress and Psychopatholog

Progress in Achieving Quantitative Classification of Psychopathology

Shortcomings of approaches to classifying psychopathology based on expert consensus have given rise to contemporary efforts to classify psychopathology quantitatively. In this paper, we review progress in achieving a quantitative and empirical classification of psychopathology. A substantial empirical literature indicates that psychopathology is generally more dimensional than categorical. When the discreteness versus continuity of psychopathology is treated as a research question, as opposed to being decided as a matter of tradition, the evidence clearly supports the hypothesis of continuity. In addition, a related body of literature shows how psychopathology dimensions can be arranged in a hierarchy, ranging from very broad “spectrum level” dimensions, to specific and narrow clusters of symptoms. In this way, a quantitative approach solves the “problem of comorbidity” by explicitly modeling patterns of co‐occurrence among signs and symptoms within a detailed and variegated hierarchy of dimensional concepts with direct clinical utility. Indeed, extensive evidence pertaining to the dimensional and hierarchical structure of psychopathology has led to the formation of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) Consortium. This is a group of 70 investigators working together to study empirical classification of psychopathology. In this paper, we describe the aims and current foci of the HiTOP Consortium. These aims pertain to continued research on the empirical organization of psychopathology; the connection between personality and psychopathology; the utility of empirically based psychopathology constructs in both research and the clinic; and the development of novel and comprehensive models and corresponding assessment instruments for psychopathology constructs derived from an empirical approach