Deutsch
 
Hilfe Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT
Zur Ablage hinzufügen
  Lokale TagsFreigabegeschichteDetailsÜbersicht

Freigegeben
Zeitschriftenartikel

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

MPG-Autoren
/persons/resource/persons262041

Rek,  Katharina
Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, Max Planck Society;

Externe Ressourcen
Es sind keine externen Ressourcen hinterlegt
Volltexte (beschränkter Zugriff)
Für Ihren IP-Bereich sind aktuell keine Volltexte freigegeben.
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Volltexte in PuRe verfügbar
Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

Zimmermann, J., Kerber, A., Rek, K., Hopwood, C. J., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. CURRENT PSYCHIATRY REPORTS, 21(9): 92. doi:10.1007/s11920-019-1079-z.


Zitierlink: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0009-5A11-F
Zusammenfassung
Purpose of Review Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD. Recent Findings A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.