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

Personality disorder research agenda for the DSM-V

The American Psychiatric Association is sponsoring a series of international conferences to set a research agenda for the development of the next edition of the diagnostic manual. The first conference in this series, “Dimensional Models of Personality Disorder: Etiology, Pathology, Phenomenology, & Treatment,” was devoted to reviewing the existing research and setting a future research agenda that would be most effective in leading the field toward a dimensional classification of personality disorder. The purpose of this article, authored by the Steering Committee of this conference, was to provide a summary of the conference papers and their recommendations for research. Covered herein are the reviews and recommendations concerning alternative dimensional models of personality disorder, behavioral genetics and gene mapping, neurobiological mechanisms, childhood antecedents, cross–cultural issues, Axes I and II continuity, coverage and cutoff points for diagnosis, and clinical utility

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