This article outlines a model of personality disorder (PD) diagnosis that combines clinically useful constructs from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) with assessment procedures that maximize reliability and clinical utility while minimizing problems associated with threshold-based PD classification. I begin by addressing limitations in the current DSM conceptualization of PDs: excessive comorbidity, use of arbitrary cutoffs to distinguish normal from pathological functioning, failure to capture variations in the adaptive value of PD symptoms, and inattention to situational influences that shape PD-related behaviors. The revisions proposed by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group help resolve some of these issues, but create new problems in other areas. A better solution would be to employ a multidimensional model of PD diagnosis in which clinicians (a) assign a single dimensional rating of overall level of personality dysfunction, (b) provide separate intensity and impairment ratings for each PD dimension, and (c) list those personality traits-including PD-related traits-that enhance adaptation and functioning. Preliminary evidence bearing on the multidimensional model is reviewed, and broader clinical and empirical implications of the model are discussed.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,247,248
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Personality Assessment
#458
of 758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,628
of 115,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Personality Assessment
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 115,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.
