COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparing the dependability and associations with functioning of the DSM-5 Section III trait model of personality pathology and the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder model.

Two competing models of personality psychopathology are included in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM-5 ; American Psychiatric Association, 2013); the traditional personality disorder (PD) model included in Section II and an alternative trait-based model included in Section III. Numerous studies have examined the validity of the alternative trait model and its official assessment instrument, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). However, few studies have directly compared the trait-based model to the traditional PD model empirically in the same dataset. Moreover, to our knowledge, only a single study (Suzuki, Griffin, & Samuel, 2015) has examined the dependability of the PID-5, which is an essential component of construct validity for traits (Chmielewski & Watson, 2009; McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2011). The current study directly compared the dependability of the DSM-5 traits, as assessed by the PID-5, and the traditional PD model, as assessed by the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4+), in a large undergraduate sample. In addition, it evaluated and compared their associations with functioning, another essential component of personality pathology. In general, our findings indicate that most DSM-5 traits demonstrate high levels of dependability that are superior to the traditional PD model; however, some of the constructs assessed by the PID-5 may be more state like. The models were roughly equivalent in terms of their associations with functioning. The current results provide additional support for the validity of PID-5 and the DSM-5 Section III personality pathology model. (PsycINFO Database Record

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app