dc.contributor.author
Kerber, André
dc.contributor.author
Macina, Caroline
dc.contributor.author
Ohse, Ludwig
dc.contributor.author
Kampe, Leonie
dc.contributor.author
Busch, Oliver
dc.contributor.author
Rentrop, Michael
dc.contributor.author
Knaevelsrud, Christine
dc.contributor.author
Wrege, Johannes
dc.contributor.author
Hörz-Sagstetter, Susanne
dc.date.accessioned
2026-01-07T06:40:20Z
dc.date.available
2026-01-07T06:40:20Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/49610
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-49332
dc.description.abstract
Background
Decades of research on the dimensional nature of personality disorder have led to the replacement of categorical personality disorder diagnoses by a dimensional assessment of personality disorder severity (PDS) in ICD-11, which essentially corresponds to personality functioning in the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. Besides advancing the focus in the diagnosis of PD on impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning, this shift also urges clinicians and researchers worldwide to get familiar with new diagnostic approaches.
Aims
This study investigated which PDS dimensions among different assessment methods and conceptualisations have the most predictive value for overall PDS.
Method
Using semi-structured interviews and self-reports of personality functioning, personality organisation and personality structure in clinical samples of different settings in Switzerland and Germany (n = 534), we calculated a latent general factor for PDS (g-PDS) by applying a correlated trait correlated (method – 1) model (CTC(M–1)).
Results
Our results showed that four interview-assessed PDS dimensions: defence mechanisms, desire and capacity for closeness, sense of self, and comprehension and appreciation of others’ experiences and motivations account for 91.1% of variance of g-PDS, with a combination of either two of these four dimensions already explaining between 81.8 and 91.3%. Regarding self-reports, the dimensions depth and duration of connections, self-perception, object perception and attachment capacity to internal objects predicted 61.3% of the variance of a latent interview-based score, with all investigated self-reported dimensions together adding up to 65.2% variance explanation.
Conclusions
Taken together, our data suggest that focusing on specific dimensions, such as intimacy and identity, in time-limited settings might be viable in determining PDS efficiently.
en
dc.format.extent
9 Seiten
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
dc.subject
Personality disorder severity (PDS)
en
dc.subject
DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD)
en
dc.subject
dimensional assessment of personality disorder
en
dc.subject
personality disorder in ICD-11
en
dc.subject.ddc
100 Philosophie und Psychologie::150 Psychologie::150 Psychologie
dc.title
Determining essential dimensions for the clinical approximation of personality disorder severity: multi-method study
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1192/bjp.2025.10347
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
The British Journal of Psychiatry
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
1
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart
46
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend
54
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
228
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.url
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2025.10347
refubium.affiliation
Erziehungswissenschaft und Psychologie
refubium.affiliation.other
Arbeitsbereich Klinisch-Psychologische Intervention

refubium.funding
Cambridge
refubium.note.author
Gefördert aus Open-Access-Mitteln der Freien Universität Berlin.
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1472-1465