More on the alternative model
I have written before about the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). Today, I present three more studies.
First, Hines et al. (2024) published “Different Routes to the Same Destination? Comparing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition Section II- and alternative model of personality disorder-defined borderline personality disorder” in Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Here’s the edited abstract:
Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is defined by the presence of at least five of nine symptoms in Section II of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, Section III Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD), BPD is defined by deficits in self and/or interpersonal functioning (Criterion A), elevated negative affectivity, and elevated antagonism and/or disinhibition (Criterion B). However, it is unclear if these definitions describe the same people and if the AMPD criteria explain unique variability in treatment outcomes in this population. In a treatment-seeking sample of adult participants diagnosed with BPD according to Section II criteria (n = 65, Mage = 27.60, 70.8% female, 76.9% White), we found a majority (66.2%) would have also received the diagnosis based on AMPD criteria. Those meeting AMPD criteria reported more severe Section II BPD symptoms than those who did not, ps< .02, ds > 0.60, and the presence or severity of Section II fears of abandonment and inappropriate anger uniquely predicted AMPD BPD diagnoses, ps< .03, ORs ≥ 2.31. Changes in AMPD dimensions explained 34% of the variability in change in work/social adjustment (p = .13) and quality of life (p = .22), respectively, over and above changes in Section II symptoms during a novel cognitive-behavioral treatment for BPD. These results suggest that AMPD criteria capture a more severe subset of BPD than Section II criteria and may be important predictors of treatment outcomes. We discuss the potential trade-offs of this shift in diagnosis.
I thought this was important because it highlights differences between the more traditional DSM-V criteria and the AMPD. It seems to me that capturing severity and predicting treatment outcomes is valuable.
Second, Clark, Ro, Vittengl & Jarrett (2024) published “Longitudinal Prediction of Psychosocial Functioning Outcomes: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Section-II personality disorders versus alternative model personality dysfunction and traits” in Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Here’s the edited abstract:
We aimed to determine and compare the longitudinal predictive power of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition’s (DSM-5) two models of personality disorder (PD) for multiple clinically relevant outcomes. A sample of 600 community-dwelling adults—half recruited by calling randomly selected phone numbers and screening-in for high-risk for personality pathology and half in treatment for mental health problems—completed an extensive battery of self-report and interview measures of personality pathology, clinical symptoms, and psychosocial functioning. Of these, 503 returned for retesting on the same measures an average of 8 months later. We used Time 1 interview data to assess DSM-5 personality pathology, both the Section-II PDs and the alternative (DSM-5) model of personality disorder’s (AMPD) Criterion A (impairment) and Criterion B (adaptive-to-maladaptive-range trait domains and facets). We used these measures to predict 20 Time 2 functioning outcomes. Both PD models significantly predicted functioning-outcome variance, albeit modestly—averaging 12.6% and 17.9% (Section-II diagnoses and criterion counts, respectively) and 15.2% and 23.2% (AMPD domains and facets, respectively). Each model significantly augmented the other in hierarchical regressions, but the AMPD domains (6.30%) and facets (8.62%) predicted more incremental variance than the Section-II diagnoses (3.74%) and criterion counts (3.31%), respectively. Borderline PD accounted for just over half of Section II’s predictive power, whereas the AMPD’s predictive power was more evenly distributed across components. We note the predictive advantages of dimensional models and articulate the theoretical and clinical advantages of the AMPD’s separation of personality functioning impairment from how this is manifested in personality traits.
The final study also looks at predictive power. Calabrese, Emery, Evans & Simms (2024) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorders and the alternative model: Prediction of naturalistically observed behavior, interpersonal functioning, and psychiatric symptoms, 1 year later. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. The edited abstract follows:
Traditional personality disorders (PDs; e.g., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition [DSM-5] Section II PDs), as well as dimensional traits (e.g., alternative model for PD [AMPD]), offer unique advantages in personality pathology assessment. However, very little is known about how these systems compare in predicting observable behavior. This study compares self-report ratings of PD symptoms (i.e., Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV PD) with self-reports of AMPD traits (i.e., Personality Inventory for DSM-5) in predicting clinical outcomes, 1 year later, via three different methods: (a) naturalistically observed psychosocial functioning (i.e., electronically activated recorder [EAR]), (b) informant-reported interpersonal functioning (i.e., Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32), and (c) self-reported suicidality (SI), depression, anxiety, and substance use symptoms (i.e., Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire). Data were analyzed from 72 individuals in current or recent psychiatric treatment meeting diagnosis for at least one PD. Results showed that DSM Section II PD and AMPD ratings yielded meaningful and comparable predictions of naturalistically observed EAR variables and informant-rated interpersonal functioning. The AMPD appeared to offer slight advantages in the prediction of EAR-observed negative affect, hostile words, and informant-rated interpersonal functioning, with clearer advantages at the facet level. Overall, these results provide tentative evidence that both DSM Section II PD and AMPD systems show meaningful links with clinical outcomes measured via multiple methods 1 year later, but with clearer advantages for the AMPD at the facet level. Moreover, results show that the EAR is a viable method for capturing naturalistically observed clinically meaningful, in vivo behavior of individuals exhibiting maladaptive personality patterns.