Personality diagnoses in adolescence: DSM-IV axis II diagnoses and an empirically derived alternative

OBJECTIVE: The study of personality pathology in adolescence is in its infancy. This article examined the applicability and limits of DSM-IV axis II personality disorder diagnoses in adolescents, assessed the validity of a method for assessing adolescent personality pathology, and began to develop an empirically grounded classification. METHOD: A total of 296 randomly selected clinicians described a patient age 14-18 in treatment for maladaptive personality patterns using axis II ratings scales and the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 for Adolescents (SWAP-200-A), a Q-sort instrument for assessing adolescent personality pathology. After examining the nature and frequency of axis II disorders in the sample, the authors used Q-factor analysis to identify naturally occurring groupings of patients on the basis of shared personality features. RESULTS: Axis II diagnoses in adolescents resembled those in adults, although application of DSM-IV criteria appeared to overdiagnose antisocial and avoidant personality disorder in adolescents. Q analysis with the SWAP-200-A isolated five personality disorders (antisocial-psychopathic, emotionally dysregulated, avoidant-constricted, narcissistic, and histrionic) and one personality style. Patients' dimensional scores on each diagnostic prototype showed predictable associations with ratings of current axis II disorders, measures of adaptive functioning, and symptoms assessed with the Child Behavior Checklist. CONCLUSIONS: With some exceptions, personality pathology in adolescence resembles that in adults and is diagnosable in adolescents ages 14-18. Categories and criteria developed for adults may not be the optimal way of diagnosing adolescents. Data from samples of adolescents may prove useful in developing an empirically and clinically grounded classification of personality pathology in adolescents.     

Childhood trauma, dissociation, and psychiatric comorbidity in patients with conversion disorder

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate dissociative disorder and overall psychiatric comorbidity in patients with conversion disorder. METHOD: Thirty-eight consecutive patients previously diagnosed with conversion disorder were evaluated in two follow-up interviews. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R, the Dissociation Questionnaire, the Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire, and the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire were administered during the first follow-up interview. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders was conducted in a separate evaluation. RESULTS: At least one psychiatric diagnosis was found in 89.5% of the patients during the follow-up evaluation. Undifferentiated somatoform disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, dysthymic disorder, simple phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depression, and dissociative disorder not otherwise specified were the most prevalent psychiatric disorders. A dissociative disorder was seen in 47.4% of the patients. These patients had dysthymic disorder, major depression, somatization disorder, and borderline personality disorder more frequently than the remaining subjects. They also reported childhood emotional and sexual abuse, physical neglect, self-mutilative behavior, and suicide attempts more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid dissociative disorder should alert clinicians for a more chronic and severe psychopathology among patients with conversion disorder.     

Under the axis II radar: clinically relevant personality constellations that escape DSM-IV diagnosis

Research suggests that personality pathology lies on a continuum from relatively severe to less severe and that subthreshold variants may not be adequately captured by axis II of DSM-IV. In this study, we used a measure of personality and psychopathology designed for experienced clinical observers (the SWAP-200) to derive subthreshold personality constellations in a sample of 159 psychotherapy patients who were high functioning but nevertheless suffered from maladaptive personality patterns. Using Q-factor analysis (an empirical clustering procedure), we identified 4 diagnostic groupings or SPC, which resembled the clinical concept of "neurotic styles": depressive, hostile-competitive, obsessive, and hysterical. The results of this study should stimulate further research on subthreshold personality configurations.     

Longitudinal comparison of depressive personality disorder and dysthymic disorder

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the related diagnostic constructs of depressive personality disorder (DPD) and dysthymic disorder (DD). The authors attempted to replicate findings of Klein and Shih in longitudinally followed patients with personality disorder or major depressive disorder (MDD) in the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. METHODS: Subjects (N = 665) were evaluated at baseline and over 2 years (n = 546) by reliably trained clinical interviewers using semistructured interviews and self-report personality questionnaires. RESULTS: Only 44 subjects (24.6% of 179 DPD and 49.4% of 89 early-onset dysthymic subjects) met criteria for both disorders at baseline. Depressive personality disorder was associated with increased comorbidity of some axis I anxiety disorders and other axis II diagnoses, particularly avoidant (71.5%) and borderline (55.9%) personality disorders. Depressive personality disorder was associated with low positive and high negative affectivity on dimensional measures of temperament. Depressive personality disorder subjects had lower likelihood of remission of baseline MDD at 2-year follow-up, whereas DD subjects did not. The DPD diagnosis appeared unstable over 2 years of follow-up, as only 31% (n = 47) of 154 subjects who had DPD at baseline and also had follow-up assessment met criteria on blind retesting. LIMITATIONS: Results from this sample may not generalize to other populations. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive personality disorder and dysthymic disorder appear to be related but differ in diagnostic constructs. Its moderating effect on MDD and predicted relationship to measures of temperament support the validity of DPD, but its diagnostic instability raises questions about its course, utility, and measurement.     

Dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders: relationships to functional impairment

OBJECTIVE: This study compared three-dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders and standard categories with respect to their associations with psychosocial functioning. METHOD: Six hundred sixty-eight patients with semistructured interview diagnoses of schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, or obsessive-compulsive personality disorders or with major depressive disorder and no personality disorder completed questionnaires assessing three-factor and five-factor dimensional models of personality. Personality disorder categories, dimensional representations of the categories based on criteria counts, and three- and five-factor personality dimensions were compared on their relationships to impairment in seven domains of functioning, as measured by the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation-Baseline Version. RESULTS: Both the categorical and dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders had stronger relationships to impairment in functioning in the domains of employment, social relationships with parents and friends, and global social adjustment and to DSM-IV axis V ratings than the three- and five-factor models. DSM-IV dimensions predicted functional impairment best of the four approaches. Although five-factor personality traits captured variance in functional impairment not predicted by DSM-IV personality disorder dimensions, the DSM-IV dimensions accounted for significantly more variance than the measures of personality. CONCLUSIONS: Scores on dimensions of general personality functioning do not appear to be as strongly associated with functional impairment as the psychopathology of DSM personality disorder. A compromise in the ongoing debate over categories versus dimensions of personality disorder might be the dimensional rating of the criteria that comprise traditional categories.     

抑郁障碍与人格障碍的共病研究

目的　了解抑郁障碍患者中人格障碍的发生率,探讨抑郁障碍与人格障碍的共病情况。方法　使用SCID- Ⅱ对102例抑郁障碍患者进行人格障碍的评估,并与102例正常人群对照,对抑郁障碍组进行汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)评定。结果　抑郁障碍组人格障碍的发生率为51.9%,31.4%的患者被诊断为两种或以上的人格障碍,显著高于对照组的14.7%;女性抑郁障碍患者人格障碍的发生率(63.5%)显著多于男性患者(40.0%);重性抑郁症与心境恶劣患者人格障碍的共病率则无统计学差异(P>0.05);抑郁障碍患者中最常见的人格障碍类型为回避型、强迫型、消极型以及偏执型。结论　抑郁障碍患者中具有较高的人格障碍患病率,对抑郁障碍和人格障碍的共病应引起临床高度重视。     

Axis II comorbidity of borderline personality disorder: description of 6-year course and prediction to time-to-remission

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the axis II comorbidity of 202 patients whose borderline personality disorder (BPD) remitted over 6 years of prospective follow-up to that of 88 whose BPD never remitted. METHOD: The axis II comorbidity of 290 patients meeting both DIB-R and DSM-III-R criteria for BPD was assessed at baseline using a semistructured interview of demonstrated reliability. Over 96% of surviving patients were reinterviewed about their co-occurring axis II disorders blind to all previously collected information at three distinct follow-up waves: 2-, 4-, and 6-year follow-up. RESULTS: Both remitted and non-remitted borderline patients experienced declining rates of most types of axis II disorders over time. However, the rates of avoidant, dependent, and self-defeating personality disorders remained high among non-remitted borderline patients. Additionally, the absence of these three disorders was found to be significantly correlated with a borderline patient's likelihood-of-remission and time-to-remission; self-defeating personality disorder by a factor of 4, dependent personality disorder by a factor of 3 1/2, and avoidant personality disorder by a factor of almost 2. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that axis II disorders co-occur less commonly with BPD over time, particularly for remitted borderline patients. They also suggest that anxious cluster disorders are the axis II disorders which most impede symptomatic remission from BPD.     

Ten-year stability of depressive personality disorder in depressed outpatients

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the long-term stability of depressive personality disorder. METHOD: The subjects included 142 outpatients with axis I depressive disorders at study entry; 73 had depressive personality disorder. The patients were assessed by using semistructured diagnostic interviews at baseline and in four follow-up evaluations at 2.5-year intervals over 10.0 years. Follow-up data were available for 127 (89.4%) of the patients. RESULTS: The 10.0-year stability of the diagnoses of depressive personality disorder was fair, and the rate of depressive personality disorder declined over time. The dimensional score was moderately stable over 10.0 years. Growth curve analyses revealed a sharp decline in the level of depressive personality disorder traits between the baseline and 2.5-year assessments, followed by a gradual linear decrease. Reductions in depressive personality disorder traits were associated with remission of the axis I depressive disorders. Finally, depressive personality disorder at baseline predicted the trajectory of depressive symptoms over time in patients with dysthymic disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive personality disorder is moderately stable, particularly when assessed with a dimensional approach. However, the diagnosis rate and traits of depressive personality disorder tend to decline over time. The degree of stability for depressive personality disorder is comparable to that for the axis II disorders in the main text of DSM-IV. Finally, depressive personality disorder has prognostic implications for the course of axis I mood disorders, such as dysthymic disorder.     

Borderline personality-bipolar spectrum relationship

BACKGROUND: The relationship between borderline personality disorder (BPD) and bipolar disorders, especially bipolar-II disorder (BP-II), is unclear. Several reviews on the topic have come to opposite conclusions, i.e., that BPD is a bipolar spectrum disorder or instead that it is unrelated to bipolar disorders. Study aim was to find which items of BPD were related to BP-II, and which instead had no relationship with BP-II. METHODS: Study setting: An outpatient psychiatry private practice, more representative of mood disorders usually seen in clinical practice in Italy. INTERVIEWER: A senior clinical and mood disorder research psychiatrist. PATIENT POPULATION: A consecutive sample of 138 BP-II and 71 major depressive disorder (MDD) remitted outpatients. ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS: The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders-Clinician Version (SCID-CV) was used for diagnosing, the SCID-II Personality Questionnaire was used by patients to self-assess borderline personality traits. Interview methods: Patients were interviewed with the SCID-CV to diagnose BP-II and MDD. The questions of the Personality Questionnaire relative to borderline personality were self-assessed by patients. As clinically significant distress or impairment of functioning was not assessed by the questionnaire, a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder could not be made, but borderline personality traits (BPT) could be assessed (i.e., all DSM-IV BPD items but not the impairment criterion). RESULTS: BPT items were significantly more common in BP-II versus MDD. The best combination of sensitivity and specificity for predicting BP-II was found by using a cutoff number of BPT items > or =5: specificity was 71.4%, sensitivity was 45.9%. BPT (defined by > or =5 items) was present in 29.5% of MDD and in 46.3% of BP-II (p=0.019). Logistic regression of BP-II versus BPT items number found a significant association. Principal component factor analysis of BPT items found two orthogonal factors: "affective instability" including unstable mood, unstable interpersonal relationships, unstable self-image, chronic emptiness, and anger, and "impulsivity" including impulsivity, suicidal behavior, avoidance of abandonment, and paranoid ideation. "Affective instability" was associated with BP-II (p=0.010), but "impulsivity" was not associated with BP-II (p=0.193). Interitem correlation was low. There was no significant correlation between the two factors. DISCUSSION: Study findings suggest that DSM-IV BPD may mix two sets of unrelated items: an affective instability dimension related to BP-II, and an impulsivity dimension not related to BP-II, which may explain the opposite conclusions of several reviews. A subtyping of BPD according to these dimensions is supported by the study findings.     

Outcome of dysthymic disorder at 5-year follow-up: the effect of familial psychopathology, early adversity, personality, comorbidity, and chronic stress.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to identify predictors of course and outcome in dysthymic disorder. METHOD: Eighty-six outpatients with early-onset dysthymic disorder (before age 21) participated in a prospective 5-year follow-up study. Family history of psychopathology, early home environment, axis I and II comorbidity, social support, and chronic stress were assessed at baseline. The Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale were used in the follow-up assessments conducted at 30 and 60 months. RESULTS: Comorbid anxiety disorder, cluster C and depressive personality features, and chronic stress were associated with a lower rate of recovery from dysthymic disorder, while family history of bipolar disorder was associated with a higher probability of recovery. Family history of dysthymic disorder, poor childhood maternal and paternal relationships, childhood sexual abuse, cluster C features, neuroticism, a history of anxiety and eating disorders, and chronic stress predicted higher levels of depression at follow-up. Multivariate models indicated that almost all domains contributed to the prediction of course and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The course and outcome of dysthymic disorder is best conceptualized within a multifactorial framework, with family history of psychopathology, early adversity, axis I and II comorbidity, and chronic stress all making important contributions.     

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and treatment outcome in opioid abusers entering treatment.

Symptoms of DSM-IV attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were determined in patients entering methadone maintenance treatment. The relationship of ADHD to psychiatric and substance abuse comorbidity, attention testing, and treatment outcome was analyzed; 19% of patients had a history of ADHD, and 88% of these had current symptoms. Continuous Performance Testing indicated poorer attention in patients with ADHD. The only substance use disorder more common in the ADHD group was clonidine. There was significantly more current axis I, dysthymic disorder, anxiety disorder (including social phobia), and antisocial personality disorder in the ADHD patients. There was no difference between groups at the 1-year follow-up for illicit drug use, treatment retention, or treatment performance. The ADHD diagnosis did not convey significant prognostic implications for methadone maintenance treatment. A strong psychiatric assessment and treatment focus in the treatment program may help to explain the good treatment outcome.     

Borderline personality disorder and bipolar II disorder in private practice depressed outpatients

Bipolar II disorder (BDII) may be confused with borderline personality disorder (BPD) when it is cyclothymic between episodes. The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of BPD and to test whether BDII can be distinguished from BPD without difficulty in private practice mood disorder outpatients. Private practice was chosen because it is often the first or second line of treatment of mood disorders in Italy, and many "soft" patients can be found in this setting. Among 63 consecutive unipolar and 50 bipolar II major depressive episode (MDE) outpatients interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interviews for DSM-IV axis I/II disorders (SCIDs), the prevalence of BPD was 6.1% and was significantly higher in BDII patients (12% v. 1.5%). Overall, the rate of BPD diagnosis was very low. BDII was distinguished from BPD without difficulty by DSM-IV criteria. The results suggest that there may be a subgroup of BDII patients with a relatively stable course between episodes (or at least not so unstable as to suggest a BPD diagnosis or comorbidity) and a low comorbidity with BPD, in a setting closer to community patients than university settings. The "usual" BDII patient can be distinguished from the BPD patient.     

Co-occurrence of mood and personality disorders: a report from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS)

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of subtypes and particular clinical features of mood disorders to co-occurrence with specific personality disorders. Five hundred and seventy-one subjects recruited for the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study (CLPS) were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) and the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (DIPD-IV). Percent co-occurrence rates for current and lifetime mood disorders with personality disorders were calculated. Logistic regression analyses examined the effects of clinical characteristics of depressive disorders (e.g., age at onset, recurrence, symptom severity, double depression, and atypical features) on personality disorder co-occurrence. In comparison with other DSM-IV personality disorders, avoidant, borderline, and dependent personality disorders (PDs) were most specifically associated with mood disorders, particularly depressive disorders. Severity and recurrence of major depressive disorder and comorbid dysthymic disorder predicted co-occurrence with borderline and to a lesser extent research criteria depressive personality disorders. The results are consistent with the view that a mood disorder with an insidious onset and recurrence, chronicity, and progression in severity leads to a personality disorder diagnosis in young adults.     

Personality disorders in dysthymia and major depression.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the comorbidity of personality disorders in patients with primary dysthymia compared to those with episodic major depression. METHOD: A total of 177 out-patients with primary dysthymia and 187 outpatients with episodic major depression were administered a structured diagnostic interview for DSM-III-R Axis II disorders. In addition, all of these patients completed the BDI, and those with the appropriate level of education also completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of dysthymic patients than patients with major depression met the criteria for a personality disorder, for borderline, histrionic, avoidant, dependent, self-defeating types and for personality disorders of clusters B and C. Further analysis revealed that the above differences were mainly due to the subgroup of patients with 'early-onset dysthymia'. Finally, patients with a personality disorder, both dysthymics and those with major depression, had significantly higher scores on the BDI and on the majority of the MMPI scales compared to those without a personality disorder. CONCLUSION: The data indicated that (i) dysthymia--mainly that of early onset--is associated with significantly higher personality disorder comorbidity than episodic major depression, and (ii) the presence of a personality disorder is related to more severe overall psychopathology.     

Predictors of 2-year outcome for patients with borderline personality disorder

OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this report was to investigate whether characteristics of subjects with borderline personality disorder observed at baseline can predict variations in outcome at the 2-year follow-up. METHOD: Hypothesized predictor variables were selected from prior studies. The patients (N=160) were recruited from the four clinical sites of the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders; the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders, a modified version of that instrument; the Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation; and the Childhood Experiences Questionnaire-Revised. Univariate Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated on the primary predictor variables, and with two forward stepwise regression models, outcome was assessed with global functioning and number of borderline personality disorder criteria. RESULTS: The authors' most significant results confirm prior findings that more severe baseline psychopathology (i.e., higher levels of borderline personality disorder criteria and functional disability) and a history of childhood trauma predict a poor outcome. A new finding suggests that the quality of current relationships of patients with borderline personality disorder have prognostic significance. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians can estimate 2-year prognosis for patients with borderline personality disorder by evaluating level of severity of psychopathology, childhood trauma, and current relationships.     

Functional impairment in patients with schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare psychosocial functioning in patients with schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and patients with major depressive disorder and no personality disorder. METHOD: Patients (N=668) were recruited by the four clinical sites of the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. The carefully diagnosed study groups were compared on an array of domains of psychosocial functioning, as measured by the Longitudinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation--Baseline Version and the Social Adjustment Scale. RESULTS: Patients with schizotypal personality disorder and borderline personality disorder were found to have significantly more impairment at work, in social relationships, and at leisure than patients with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder or major depressive disorder; patients with avoidant personality disorder were intermediate. These differences were found across assessment modalities and remained significant after covarying for demographic differences and comorbid axis I psychopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Personality disorders are a significant source of psychiatric morbidity, accounting for more impairment in functioning than major depressive disorder alone.