Striking the (Im)proper balance between scientific advances and clinical utility: Commentary on the DSM-5 proposal for personality disorders

Paul A. Pilkonis, Michael Nelson Hallquist, Jennifer Q. Morse, Stephanie D. Stepp

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We review briefly the contributions of Skodol et al. (2011a, 2011b), Pincus (2011), and Widiger (2011) describing and critiquing the proposed changes in the assessment of personality and personality disorders for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5). Despite the hard work of the DSM-5 Work Group to date, there are shortcomings and areas of controversy in the current proposal that demand further attention and change. We discuss the controversy in the broader context of the DSM over the past 30 years. In addressing specific problems, we focus on the limitations of the proposed system for assessing traits (even as we endorse the movement toward dimensional assessment of personality) and the difficulties posed by the current "hybrid" model that attempts to include both traits and types. In moving forward, we suggest greater emphasis on decision making regarding the presence and severity of any personality disorder (understood on the basis of generalized failures in adaptation) and greater flexibility in identifying the variants of personality disorders in order to accommodate both traits and types more inclusively during this transition toward dimensional approaches to assessment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)68-82
Number of pages15
JournalPersonality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment
Volume2
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2011

Fingerprint

Personality Disorders
Personality Assessment
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Decision Making

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{c25d8d53e5fd4fa3940a5e5222d3bcad,
title = "Striking the (Im)proper balance between scientific advances and clinical utility: Commentary on the DSM-5 proposal for personality disorders",
abstract = "We review briefly the contributions of Skodol et al. (2011a, 2011b), Pincus (2011), and Widiger (2011) describing and critiquing the proposed changes in the assessment of personality and personality disorders for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5). Despite the hard work of the DSM-5 Work Group to date, there are shortcomings and areas of controversy in the current proposal that demand further attention and change. We discuss the controversy in the broader context of the DSM over the past 30 years. In addressing specific problems, we focus on the limitations of the proposed system for assessing traits (even as we endorse the movement toward dimensional assessment of personality) and the difficulties posed by the current {"}hybrid{"} model that attempts to include both traits and types. In moving forward, we suggest greater emphasis on decision making regarding the presence and severity of any personality disorder (understood on the basis of generalized failures in adaptation) and greater flexibility in identifying the variants of personality disorders in order to accommodate both traits and types more inclusively during this transition toward dimensional approaches to assessment.",
author = "Pilkonis, {Paul A.} and Hallquist, {Michael Nelson} and Morse, {Jennifer Q.} and Stepp, {Stephanie D.}",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/a0022226",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "68--82",
journal = "Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment",
issn = "1949-2715",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Striking the (Im)proper balance between scientific advances and clinical utility : Commentary on the DSM-5 proposal for personality disorders. / Pilkonis, Paul A.; Hallquist, Michael Nelson; Morse, Jennifer Q.; Stepp, Stephanie D.

In: Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, Vol. 2, No. 1, 01.01.2011, p. 68-82.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Striking the (Im)proper balance between scientific advances and clinical utility

T2 - Commentary on the DSM-5 proposal for personality disorders

AU - Pilkonis, Paul A.

AU - Hallquist, Michael Nelson

AU - Morse, Jennifer Q.

AU - Stepp, Stephanie D.

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - We review briefly the contributions of Skodol et al. (2011a, 2011b), Pincus (2011), and Widiger (2011) describing and critiquing the proposed changes in the assessment of personality and personality disorders for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5). Despite the hard work of the DSM-5 Work Group to date, there are shortcomings and areas of controversy in the current proposal that demand further attention and change. We discuss the controversy in the broader context of the DSM over the past 30 years. In addressing specific problems, we focus on the limitations of the proposed system for assessing traits (even as we endorse the movement toward dimensional assessment of personality) and the difficulties posed by the current "hybrid" model that attempts to include both traits and types. In moving forward, we suggest greater emphasis on decision making regarding the presence and severity of any personality disorder (understood on the basis of generalized failures in adaptation) and greater flexibility in identifying the variants of personality disorders in order to accommodate both traits and types more inclusively during this transition toward dimensional approaches to assessment.

AB - We review briefly the contributions of Skodol et al. (2011a, 2011b), Pincus (2011), and Widiger (2011) describing and critiquing the proposed changes in the assessment of personality and personality disorders for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5). Despite the hard work of the DSM-5 Work Group to date, there are shortcomings and areas of controversy in the current proposal that demand further attention and change. We discuss the controversy in the broader context of the DSM over the past 30 years. In addressing specific problems, we focus on the limitations of the proposed system for assessing traits (even as we endorse the movement toward dimensional assessment of personality) and the difficulties posed by the current "hybrid" model that attempts to include both traits and types. In moving forward, we suggest greater emphasis on decision making regarding the presence and severity of any personality disorder (understood on the basis of generalized failures in adaptation) and greater flexibility in identifying the variants of personality disorders in order to accommodate both traits and types more inclusively during this transition toward dimensional approaches to assessment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952050669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952050669&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0022226

DO - 10.1037/a0022226

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79952050669

VL - 2

SP - 68

EP - 82

JO - Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

JF - Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

SN - 1949-2715

IS - 1

ER -