Two studies using the AMPD

I’ve written about the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) before. Here, I address two more studies. First, Maffly-Kipp & Morey (2024) published “Comparing the DSM-5 Categorical Model of Personality Disorders and the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Regarding Clinician Judgments of Risk and Outcome” in Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Here’s the edited abstract:

The goal of this study was to compare the predictive validity of the alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) versus the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Section II categorical model regarding clinician judgments about mental health outcomes. To do so, we instructed a national sample of 136 mental health professionals to provide clinical judgments on a random subset of four (out of a possible 12) case vignettes. For each case, they made a variety of diagnostic judgments corresponding to each model, as well as clinical outcome judgments (e.g., prognosis). Our analyses included hierarchical and individual regressions to compare the predictive value of each diagnostic system toward these clinical outcome judgments. We found that the AMPD predictors consistently added unique variance beyond the Section II predictors, whereas the Section II predictors were rarely incremental above the AMPD. Further, the AMPD judgments predicted outcome judgments very consistently (98.3% of regressions) compared to the Section II predictors (70% of regressions), and the single Criterion A judgment (level of personality functioning) was the strongest overall predictor. Finally, the categorical borderline personality disorder diagnoses from the two systems performed similarly in predicting clinical outcomes and agreed in 79% of cases. We interpreted our results to suggest that the AMPD is at least as effective, and by some measures more effective, than the DSM-5 categorical model at predicting clinician’s judgment of outcomes in clinical cases. We conclude by discussing the value of this evidence in relation to the broader AMPD literature, as well as possible paths forward for the diagnosis of personality disorders. 

I like this study because it supports the shift from the DSM-5 to the AMPD utilizing clinical judgments. The next study looks specifically at bullying. Seiffert et al. (2024) published “The Relationship Between Bullying Victimization and Impairment in Personality Functioning in a Clinical Adolescent Sample” in Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. The edited abstract says:

Problematic interpersonal relationships may represent both a risk factor for the development or trigger of personality disorder (PD) symptoms and its consequences. Since peer relationships become more and more important in adolescence, the current study explores the cross-sectional association between recent bullying experiences and levels of impairment in personality functioning according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD; Criterion A) in help-seeking adolescents (N = 493). Logistic and multiple regression analyses revealed that patients who were frequently bullied in the past 3 months (i.e., at least once a week) were more likely to reach the diagnostic threshold for PD according to the AMPD (OR = 1.71, p = .025) and showed higher levels of impairment in identity (β = .41, p < .001), empathy (β = .26, p = .002), and intimacy (β = .30, p = .001), but not self-direction, compared to patients who did not report any bullying experiences. Occasional bullying in the past 3 months (i.e., every few weeks) was neither associated with a greater likelihood to reach the diagnostic threshold for PD nor with greater impairments in identity, self-direction, empathy, or intimacy compared to no bullying. While the current study provides support for a correlation between bullying experiences and personality dysfunction (particularly in the elements identity and intimacy), longitudinal research is needed to clarify whether experiences of bullying cause or trigger personality dysfunction or/and vice versa. 

This is a strong study is several respects. It’s a fairly large sample and looks at bullying over time. I think it’s especially important that frequent bullying correlates with impairments of identity, empathy, and intimacy. This makes sense. I especially like their final sentence about possible directions of causality.