从哪里来,到哪里去?DSM-5和ICD-11人格障碍诊断的最新发展和未来可能性。

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Lee Anna Clark
{"title":"从哪里来,到哪里去?DSM-5和ICD-11人格障碍诊断的最新发展和未来可能性。","authors":"Lee Anna Clark","doi":"10.1007/s11920-025-01602-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Provide an overview of the Alternative DSM-5 model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) and ICD-11's PD diagnostic model; review the models' assessment measures and construct validity; describe the models' current and ongoing status.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The models have many content similarities but differ significantly in that maladaptive-range traits are an AMPD requirement, but optional specifiers in ICD-11. An extensive literature using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) has yielded comprehensive reviews of its clinical utility and construct validity. Structural meta-analyses found three core facets for each of the five domains, and correlations with non-FFM measures identified 13 traits with maladaptive content not assessed by the PID-5. Joint analyses of AMPD personality-functioning measures find a clear general factor, but have raised concerns about discriminant validity among measures and with Criterion B. For both criteria, the multimethod assessment literature is sparce. Regarding ICD-11, few measures assess the required personality functioning, but one has shown promising construct validity. Multiple measures assess the optional trait specifiers, the most noteworthy of which was developed by an international group, exists in 12 languages, and assesses all six domains of the DSM-5 and ICD-11.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The status of the ongoing revision process for the AMPD is described. It seems likely-but far from guaranteed-to result in a dimensional model in the main DSM-5 section. The next step for the ICD-11 is development of a version with Research Diagnostic Criteria, but the timeline is unknown.</p>","PeriodicalId":11057,"journal":{"name":"Current Psychiatry Reports","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wherefrom and Whither PD? Recent Developments and Future Possibilities in DSM-5 and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Diagnosis.\",\"authors\":\"Lee Anna Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11920-025-01602-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Provide an overview of the Alternative DSM-5 model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) and ICD-11's PD diagnostic model; review the models' assessment measures and construct validity; describe the models' current and ongoing status.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The models have many content similarities but differ significantly in that maladaptive-range traits are an AMPD requirement, but optional specifiers in ICD-11. An extensive literature using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) has yielded comprehensive reviews of its clinical utility and construct validity. Structural meta-analyses found three core facets for each of the five domains, and correlations with non-FFM measures identified 13 traits with maladaptive content not assessed by the PID-5. Joint analyses of AMPD personality-functioning measures find a clear general factor, but have raised concerns about discriminant validity among measures and with Criterion B. For both criteria, the multimethod assessment literature is sparce. Regarding ICD-11, few measures assess the required personality functioning, but one has shown promising construct validity. Multiple measures assess the optional trait specifiers, the most noteworthy of which was developed by an international group, exists in 12 languages, and assesses all six domains of the DSM-5 and ICD-11.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The status of the ongoing revision process for the AMPD is described. It seems likely-but far from guaranteed-to result in a dimensional model in the main DSM-5 section. The next step for the ICD-11 is development of a version with Research Diagnostic Criteria, but the timeline is unknown.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11057,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Psychiatry Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Psychiatry Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-025-01602-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Psychiatry Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-025-01602-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

综述目的:综述DSM-5替代性人格障碍模型(AMPD)和ICD-11的PD诊断模型;回顾模型的评估方法和构建效度;描述模型的当前和正在进行的状态。最近的发现:这些模型在内容上有许多相似之处,但在适应范围不良特征是AMPD的要求,但在ICD-11中是可选的说明因素方面存在显著差异。大量文献使用DSM-5的人格量表(PID-5),对其临床应用和结构效度进行了全面的评价。结构荟萃分析发现,五个领域中的每个领域都有三个核心方面,并且与非ffm测量的相关性确定了13个未被PID-5评估的适应性不良内容的特征。对AMPD人格功能测量的联合分析发现了一个明确的一般因素,但引起了对测量和标准b之间的区别效度的担忧。对于两个标准,多方法评估文献都是空白的。关于ICD-11,很少有措施评估所需的人格功能,但有一个已经显示出有希望的结构效度。多种措施评估可选的特征说明符,其中最值得注意的是由一个国际小组开发的,以12种语言存在,并评估DSM-5和ICD-11的所有六个领域。结论:描述了正在进行的AMPD修订过程的状态。这似乎有可能——但远非保证——在DSM-5的主要部分产生一个维度模型。ICD-11的下一步是制定一个具有研究诊断标准的版本,但时间表尚不清楚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Wherefrom and Whither PD? Recent Developments and Future Possibilities in DSM-5 and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Diagnosis.

Purpose of review: Provide an overview of the Alternative DSM-5 model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) and ICD-11's PD diagnostic model; review the models' assessment measures and construct validity; describe the models' current and ongoing status.

Recent findings: The models have many content similarities but differ significantly in that maladaptive-range traits are an AMPD requirement, but optional specifiers in ICD-11. An extensive literature using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) has yielded comprehensive reviews of its clinical utility and construct validity. Structural meta-analyses found three core facets for each of the five domains, and correlations with non-FFM measures identified 13 traits with maladaptive content not assessed by the PID-5. Joint analyses of AMPD personality-functioning measures find a clear general factor, but have raised concerns about discriminant validity among measures and with Criterion B. For both criteria, the multimethod assessment literature is sparce. Regarding ICD-11, few measures assess the required personality functioning, but one has shown promising construct validity. Multiple measures assess the optional trait specifiers, the most noteworthy of which was developed by an international group, exists in 12 languages, and assesses all six domains of the DSM-5 and ICD-11.

Conclusion: The status of the ongoing revision process for the AMPD is described. It seems likely-but far from guaranteed-to result in a dimensional model in the main DSM-5 section. The next step for the ICD-11 is development of a version with Research Diagnostic Criteria, but the timeline is unknown.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
3.00%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal aims to review the most important, recently published research in psychiatry. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts, the journal intends to serve all those involved in the care of those affected by psychiatric disorders. We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as anxiety, medicopsychiatric disorders, and schizophrenia and other related psychotic disorders. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信