Home

Footer

DeepDyve Logo
FacebookTwitter

Features

  • Search and discover articles on DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar
  • Read the full-text of open access and premium content
  • Organize articles with folders and bookmarks
  • Collaborate on and share articles and folders

Info

  • Pricing
  • Enterprise Plans
  • Browse Journals & Topics
  • About DeepDyve

Help

  • Help
  • Publishers
  • Contact Us

Popular Topics

  • COVID-19
  • Climate Change
  • Biopharmaceuticals
Terms |
Privacy |
Security |
Help |
Enterprise Plans |
Contact Us

Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2023 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Personality Disorders

Subject:
Psychiatry and Mental Health
Publisher:
Guilford Press —
Guilford Press
ISSN:
0885-579X
Scimago Journal Rank:
99

2023

Volume 37
Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2022

Volume 36
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2021

Volume 35
Supplement C (Nov)Supplement B (Jun)Supplement A (Mar)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)

2020

Volume 34
Supplement C (Dec)Supplement B (Sep)Supplement (Mar)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2019

Volume 33
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2018

Volume 32
Supplement (Jan)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2017

Volume 31
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2016

Volume 30
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2015

Volume 2015
February
Volume 29
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2014

Volume 28
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2013

Volume 2013
February
Volume 27
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2012

Volume 2012
November
Volume 26
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2011

Volume 25
Supplement (Feb)Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2010

Volume 24
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2009

Volume 23
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2008

Volume 22
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2007

Volume 21
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2006

Volume 20
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2005

Volume 19
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2004

Volume 18
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Aug)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3: Special issue (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2003

Volume 17
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2: Special issue (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2002

Volume 16
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2001

Volume 15
Issue 6 (Dec)Issue 5 (Oct)Issue 4 (Aug)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Feb)

2000

Volume 14
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1999

Volume 13
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1998

Volume 12
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Feb)

1997

Volume 11
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1996

Volume 10
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1995

Volume 9
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1994

Volume 8
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1993

Volume 7
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1992

Volume 6
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1991

Volume 5
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1990

Volume 4
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1989

Volume 3
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1988

Volume 2
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

1987

Volume 1
Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (Jun)Issue 1 (Mar)

0001

Volume 0001
January
journal article
LitStream Collection
An Invisible College View of the DSM-5 Personality Disorder Classification

Blashfield, Roger K.; Reynolds, Shannon M.

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.821pmid: 23281666

The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group released the final proposed changes for the upcoming manual in May 2012. The proposal, located at www.dsm5.org , included a hybrid dimensional/categorical method of diagnosing personality disorders. This brief article examines the reference section of the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal rationale (American Psychiatric Association, 2012). The authors counted the number of authors and the coauthorships; coauthorship patterns were then examined and diagramed. The data suggested that a group of researchers involved with the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS) were central to the hybrid classification created by the DSM-5 work group.
journal article
LitStream Collection
The DSM Revision as a Social Psychological Process: A Commentary on Blashfield and Reynolds

Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Watts, Ashley L.; Smith, Sarah Francis

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.830pmid: 23281667

journal article
LitStream Collection
The Behavior of Academics Under Stress: A Commentary on Blashfield and Reynolds

Tyrer, Peter

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.835pmid: 23281668

journal article
LitStream Collection
How Did We Get into this Incoherent DSM PD Mess and Where Do We Go from Here? A Commentary on Blashfield and Reynolds

Millon, Theodore

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.838pmid: 23281669

Further thoughts on the Invisible College/DSM embarrassment are briefly described. How we got into this mess is noted. So too, is a suggestion as to where we should go from here.
journal article
LitStream Collection
Facts, Artifacts, Mythofacts, Invisible Colleges, Illusory Colleges: The Perils of Publication Segmentation, Citation Preference, and Megamultiple Authorship: A Commentary on Blashfield and Reynolds

Lenzenweger, Mark F.

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.841pmid: 23281670

journal article
LitStream Collection
The Heritability of Cluster B Personality Disorders Assessed Both by Personal Interview and Questionnaire

Torgersen, Svenn; Myers, John; Reichborn-Kjennerud, Ted; Røysamb, Espen; Kubarych, Thomas S.; Kendler, Kenneth S.

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.848pmid: 23281671

Whereas the heritability of common personality traits has been firmly established, the results of the few published studies on personality disorders (PDs) are highly divergent, with some studies finding high heredity and others very low. A problem with assessing personality disorders by means of interview is errors connected with interviewer bias. A way to overcome the problem is to use self-report questionnaires in addition to interviews. This study used both interview and questionnaire for assessing DSM-IV Cluster B personality disorders: antisocial personality disorder (APD), borderline (BPD), narcissistic (NPD), and histrionic (HPD). We assessed close to 2,800 twins from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health Twin Panel using a self-report questionnaire and, a few years later, the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP-IV). Items from the self-report questionnaire that best predicted the PDs captured by the interview were then selected. Measurement models combining questionnaire and interview information were applied and were fitted using Mx. Whereas the heritability of Cluster B PDs assessed by interview was around .30, and around .40–.50 when assessed by self-report questionnaire, the heritability of the convergent latent factor, including information from both interview and self-report questionnaire was .69 for APD, .67 for BPD, .71 for NPD, and .63 for HPD. As is usually found for personality, the effect of shared-in families (familial) environment was zero. In conclusion, when both interview and self-report questionnaire are taken into account, the heritability of Cluster B PD appears to be in the upper range of previous findings for mental disorders.
journal article
LitStream Collection
Borderline Personality Traits and Substance Use: Genetic Factors Underlie the Association With Smoking and Ever Use of Cannabis, but Not With High Alcohol Consumption

Distel, Marijn A.; Trull, Tim J.; de Moor, Marleen M. H.; Vink, Jacqueline M.; Geels, Lot M.; van Beek, Jenny H. D. A.; Bartels, Meike; Willemsen, Gonneke; Thiery, Evert; Derom, Catherine A.; Neale, Michael C.; Boomsma, Dorret I.

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.867pmid: 23281672

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) and substance use disorders often co-occur. Both disorders are heritable and family studies showed that there are familial factors that increase the risk for BPD as well as substance use/abuse. This is the first study that investigates whether the association of borderline personality traits (BPT) with substance use reflects an underlying genetic vulnerability or nongenetic familial influences. To this end we analyzed data of 5,638 Dutch and Belgian twins aged between 21–50 years from 3,567 families. Significant associations between BPT and high alcohol consumption ( r = .192), regular smoking ( r = .299), and ever use of cannabis ( r = .254) were found. Bivariate genetic analyses showed that the associations of BPT and substance use had different etiologies. For regular smoking and for ever use of cannabis, the correlation with BPT was explained by common genetic factors. Interestingly, for high alcohol consumption and BPT the association was explained by unique environmental factors that influence both traits rather than common genetic factors.
journal article
LitStream Collection
An Empirical Examination of Gunderson's Proposed Revision of the Diagnostic Algorithm for Borderline Personality Disorder

Zimmerman, Mark; Dalrymple, Kristy; Young, Diane; Chelminski, Iwona; Martinez, Jennifer

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.880pmid: 23281673

Gunderson (2010) recently offered a sharp criticism of the draft proposal for diagnosing personality disorders in DSM-5. Based on a review of phenomenological, factor analytic, social psychology, family, neurobiological, and treatment studies of borderline personality disorder (BPD), he proposed an alternative revision of the BPD criteria. One of the suggested changes was a modification of the DSM-IV diagnostic algorithm. Gunderson did not, however, provide any data on the impact this new diagnostic algorithm would have on the prevalence of BPD, or the validity of this alternative approach compared to the DSM-IV algorithm. In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project we administered semi-structured diagnostic interviews to 3,081 psychiatric outpatients and examined diagnostic concordance between DSM-IV and Gunderson's proposal, and whether there is incremental validity in Gunderson's diagnostic approach. The results did not indicate that the alternative diagnostic algorithm improved validity, and, depending on the threshold used, could result in false negative diagnoses.
journal article
LitStream Collection
An Empirical Evaluation of the Structure of DSM-IV Personality Disorders in a Nationally Representative Sample: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions Waves 1 and 2

Cox, Brian J.; Clara, Ian P.; Worobec, Lydia M.; Grant, Bridget F.

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.890pmid: 23281674

Individual personality disorders (PD) are grouped into three clusters in the DSM-IV (A, B, and C). There is very little empirical evidence available concerning the validity of this model in the general population. The current study included all 10 of the DSM-IV PD assessed in Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate three plausible models of the structure of Axis II personality disorders (the current hierarchical DSM-IV three-factor model in which individual PD are believed to load on their assigned clusters, which in turn load onto a single Axis II factor; a general single-factor model; and three independent factors). Each of these models was tested in both the total and also separately for gender. The higher order DSM-IV model demonstrated good fit to the data on a number of goodness-of-fit indices. The results for this model were very similar across genders. A model of PD based on the current DSM-IV hierarchical conceptualization of a higher order classification scheme received strong empirical support through confirmatory factor analysis using a number of goodness-of-fit indices in a nationally representative sample. Other models involving broad, higher order personality domains such as neuroticism in relation to personality disorders have yet to be tested in epidemiologic surveys and represent an important avenue for future research.
journal article
LitStream Collection
Exploring the Interface of Neurobehaviorally Linked Personality Dimensions and Personality Organization in Borderline Personality Disorder: The Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire and Inventory of Personality Organization

Lenzenweger, Mark F.; McClough, Joel F.; Clarkin, John F.; Kernberg, Otto F.

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.902pmid: 23281675

Advances in our understanding of complex psychopathology will likely benefit from approaches to mind, brain, and behavior that seek to (a) specify those general neurobehavioral processes underpinning pathology and (b) bridge to other process-based models of psychopathology at different levels of analysis. Well-defined neurobehavioral processes (e.g., positive emotionality, negative emotionality, nonaffective constraint, fear, affiliation) and their phenotypic indicators are firmly rooted in neural substrates (Depue & Lenzenweger, 2005). Furthermore, long-studied psychodynamic psychological processes, such as identity diffusion, primitive psychological defensive functioning, and reality-testing dimensions, are important to understanding personality pathology (Kernberg & Caligor, 2005). Both theoretical perspectives view the cardinal processes involved in the determination of personality disorders (PDs) as relevant across existing PD diagnostic entities. The authors examined relationships between psychometric indicators of these two sets of processes, the neurobehavioral and the psychodynamic, in a well-characterized sample of individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD; N = 92). In bridging these two levels of analysis, the authors found that the alienation, aggression, and absorption constructs represent important linkages to the psychodynamic processes, especially primitive psychological defenses and reality-testing impairments. These results are discussed in terms of their potential for joining these two domains of analysis—a neurobehaviorally informed view of personality and the psychodynamic—in efforts to (a) foster a process-oriented approach, (b) resolve heterogeneity, and (c) facilitate identification of endophenotypes in BPD. The heuristic value of this approach for understanding other forms of psychopathology is also discussed.
journal article
LitStream Collection
Schizoid Personality Disorder

Siever, Larry J.; Triebwasser, Joseph; Chemerinski, Eran; Roussos, Panos

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.919pmid: 23281676

Schizoid personality disorder (ScPD) is one of the “odd cluster” or “cluster A” personality disorders in DSM-IV. In the present article, the authors review information pertaining to the psychometric characteristics of ScPD as gleaned from a search of relevant publications as well as from databases of personality disorder study groups. Comparatively little evidence exists for the validity and reliability of ScPD as a separate, multifaceted personality disorder. Some authors, moreover, have contended that the group of patients termed “schizoid” actually fall into two distinct groups—an “affect constricted” group, who might better be subsumed within schizotypal personality disorder, and a “seclusive” group, who might better be subsumed within avoidant personality disorder. The research-based justification for retaining ScPD as an independent diagnosis is sufficiently sparse for it to seem reasonable to remove ScPD from the list of personality disorders in DSM-V , and instead to invite clinicians to code for schizoid traits using a dimensional model.
journal article
LitStream Collection
The Incremental Validity of Borderline Personality Disorder Relative to Major Depressive Disorder for Suicidal Ideation and Deliberate Self-Harm in Adolescents

Sharp, Carla; Green, Kelly L.; Yaroslavsky, Ilya; Venta, Amanda; Zanarini, Mary C.; Pettit, Jeremy

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.927pmid: 23281677

Few studies have examined the relation between suicide-related behaviors and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in adolescent samples. The current study investigated the incremental validity of BPD relative to Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) for suicide-related behaviors in a psychiatric sample of adolescents at the cross-sectional level of analysis. The sample included N = 156 consecutive admissions (55.1% female; M age = 15.47; SD = 1.41), to the adolescent treatment program of an inpatient treatment facility. Of the sample 19.2% ( n = 30) met criteria for BPD on the Child Interview for DSM-IV Borderline Personality Disorder and 39.1% ( n = 61) met criteria for MDD on the Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children–IV. Results showed that BPD conferred additional risk for suicidal ideation and deliberate self-harm. Our findings support the clinical impression that BPD should be evaluated in inpatient samples of adolescents either through intake interviews or more structured assessments.
journal article
LitStream Collection
What Does Sadness Mean to BPD Patients?

Briand-Malenfant, Rachel; Lecours, Serge; Deschenaux, Emilie

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.939pmid: 23281678

Dysphoria is a core feature of Borderline Personality Disorder. Although a few studies have examined the nature of dysphoria in those patients, no research has focused on their experience of sadness. Considering the adaptive value of this emotion, an understanding of how BPD patients experience sadness is relevant to treatment. We conducted a qualitative analysis of the narratives of seven individuals with a diagnosis of BPD that have participated in a semi-structured interview describing sadness experiences in a relational context. Fourteen episodes were analyzed jointly by two doctoral students following Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis principles. Five themes were found: (1) aggression, (2) relationship broken off by the other, (3) undifferentiated negative affect, (4) self being defective, and (5) overwhelming experience. Surprisingly, sadness in a relational context was not associated with a representation of loss. The results suggest instead that sadness in those episodes is a non-mentalized experience that should not be conceptualized as sadness proper.
journal article
LitStream Collection
“Mad or Bad?”: Burden on Caregivers of Patients With Personality Disorders

Bauer, Rita; Döring, Antje; Schmidt, Tanja; Spießl, Hermann

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.956pmid: 23281679

The burden on caregivers of patients with personality disorders is often greatly underestimated or completely disregarded. Possibilities for caregiver support have rarely been assessed. Thirty interviews were conducted with caregivers of such patients to assess illness-related burden. Responses were analyzed with a mixed method of qualitative and quantitative analysis in a sequential design. Patient and caregiver data, including sociodemographic and disease-related variables, were evaluated with regression analysis and regression trees. Caregiver statements ( n = 404) were summarized into 44 global statements. The most frequent global statements were worries about the burden on other family members (70.0%), poor cooperation with clinical centers and other institutions (60.0%), financial burden (56.7%), worry about the patient's future (53.3%), and dissatisfaction with the patient's treatment and rehabilitation (53.3%). Linear regression and regression tree analysis identified predictors for more burdened caregivers. Caregivers of patients with personality disorders experience a variety of burdens, some disorder specific. Yet these caregivers often receive little attention or support.
journal article
LitStream Collection
Author Index to Volume 26: Journal of Personality Disorders

2012 Journal of Personality Disorders

doi: 10.1521/pedi.2012.26.6.973

Browse All Journals

Related Journals:

American Journal of PsychiatrySchizophrenia BulletinActa Psychiatrica ScandinavicaInternational Journal of Eating DisordersJournal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseCanadian Journal of PsychiatryBMC PsychiatryWorld PsychiatryCurrent Opinion in PsychiatryCurrent Psychiatry Reports