Paradigmenwechsel in der Klassifikation von Persönlichkeitsstörungen

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

In den aktuellen Klassifikationssystemen für psychische Störungen, DSM und ICD, zeichnet sich im Bereich der Persönlichkeitsstörungen (PS) ein Paradigmenwechsel ab. Im Kern geht es dabei um die Einführung von 2 dimensionalen Modulen zur Erfassung des Schweregrads und der Art der Persönlichkeitsproblematik (PP). Auf diese Weise könnte eine Reihe von Problemen gelöst werden, die mit den aktuell noch gültigen kategorialen Systemen verbunden sind.

• Literatur

• 1 Arbeitskreis OPD. Operationalisierte Psychodynamische Diagnostik OPD-2; Das Manual für Diagnostik und Therapieplanung. Bern: Hans Huber; 2006
  Google Scholar
• 2 Bateman AW. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?. Personal Ment Health 2011; 5: 274-280
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Bender DS, Morey LC, Skodol AE. Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM–5, Part I: A review of theory and methods. J Pers Assess 2011; 93: 332-346
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Bernstein DP, Iscan C, Maser J. Opinions of personality disorder experts regarding the DSM-IV personality disorders classification system. J Pers Disord 2007; 21: 536-551
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Bornstein RF. Reconceptualizing personality disorder diagnosis in the DSM-V: The discriminant validity challenge. Clin Psychol 1998; 5: 333-343
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Bornstein RF, Huprich SK. Beyond dysfunction and threshold-based classification: A multidimensional model of personality disorder Diagnosis. J Pers Disord 2011; 25: 331-337
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Clark LA, Ro E. Three-pronged assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder and its consequences: Personality functioning, pathological traits, and psychosocial dis­ability. Personal Disord 2014; 5: 55-69
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Crawford MJ, Koldobsky N, Mulder RT, Tyrer P. Classifying personality disorder according to severity. J Pers Disord 2011; 25: 321-330
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Doering S, Hörz S Hrsg Handbuch Strukturdiagnostik; Konzepte, Instrumente, Praxis. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2012
  Google Scholar
• 10 Feenstra DJ, Hutsebaut J, Verheul R, van Limbeek J. Identity: Empirical Contribution: Changes in the identity inte­gration of adolescents in treatment for personality disorders. J Pers Disord 2014; 28: 101-112
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Feighner JP, Robins E, Guze SB, Woodruff RA, Winokur G, Munoz R. 1972; Diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 26: 57-63
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Frances AJ, Widiger T. Psychiatric diagnosis: Lessons from the DSM-IV past and cautions for the DSM-5 future. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2012; 8: 109-130
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Gunderson JG. Seeking clarity for future revisions of the personality disorders in DSM-5. Personal Disord 2013; 4: 368-376
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Harkness AR, Lilienfeld SO. Individual differences science for treatment planning: Personality traits. Psychol Assess 1997; 9: 349-360
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Harkness AR, Reynolds SM, Lilienfeld SO. A review of systems for psychology and psychiatry: adaptive systems, Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5), and the DSM–5. J Pers Assess 2014; 96: 121-139
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Haslam N, Holland E, Kuppens P. Categories versus dimensions in personality and psychopathology: A quantitative review of taxometric research. Psychol Med 2012; 42: 903-920
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Hentschel AG, Livesley WJ. The General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD): Factor structure, incremental validity of self-pathology, and relations to DSM–IV personality disorders. J Pers Assess 2013; 95: 479-485
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Hopwood CJ, Wright AGC, Ansell EB, Pincus AL. The interpersonal core of personality pathology. J Pers Disord 2013; 27: 270-295
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 John OP, Naumann LP, Soto CJ. Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA. Hrsg Handbook of personality. New York/London: The Guilford Press; 2008: 114-158
  Google Scholar
• 20 Kim Y, Blashfield R, Tyrer P, Hwang S, Lee H. Field trial of a putative research algorithm for diagnosing ICD-11 personality disorders in psychiatric patients: 1. Severity of personality disturbance. Personal Ment Health 2014; 8: 67-78
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE et al. Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med 2012; 42: 1879-1890
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Krueger RF, Markon KE. The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2014; 10: 477-501
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Krueger RF. Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era. Personal Disord 2013; 4: 355-362
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Krueger RF, Hopwood CJ, Wright AGC, Markon KE. DSM-5 and the path toward empirically based and clinically useful conceptualization of personality and psychopathology. Clin Psychol 2014; [im Druck]
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Leising D, Rogers K, Ostner J. The undisordered personality: Normative assumptions underlying personality disorder diagnoses. Rev Gen Psychol 2009; 13: 230-241
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Leising D, Zimmermann J. An integrative conceptual framework for assessing personality and personality pathology. Rev Gen Psychol 2011; 15: 317-330
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Leising D, Zimmermann J. Quo vadis, Persönlichkeitsstörung? . Report Psychologie 2014; [im Druck]
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Livesley WJ. Tentative steps in the right direction. Personal Ment Health 2011; 5: 263-270
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Livesley WJ. The DSM-5 personality disorder proposal and future directions in the diagnostic classification of personality disorder. Psychopathology 2013; 46: 207-216
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Livesley WJ. Suggestions for a framework for an empirically based classification of personality disorder. Can J ­Psychiatry 1998; 43: 137-147
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Luyten P, Blatt SJ. Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition in normal and disrupted personality development: Retrospect and prospect. Am Psychol 2013; 68: 172-183
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Morey LC, Bender DS, Skodol AE. Validating the proposed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, severity indicator for personality disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis 2013; 201: 729-735
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Morey LC, Berghuis H, Bender DS et al. Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM–5 , Part II: Empirical articulation of a core dimension of personality pathology. J Pers Assess 2011; 93: 347-353
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Morey LC, Skodol AE. Convergence between DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 diagnostic models for personality disorder: Evaluation of strategies for establishing diagnostic thresholds. J Psychiatr Pract 2013; 19: 179-193
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Mulder RT, Newton-Howes G, Crawford MJ, Tyrer PJ. The central domains of personality pathology in psychiatric patients. J Pers Disord 2011; 25: 364-377
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Parker G, Both L, Olley A et al. Defining disordered personality functioning. J Pers Disord 2002; 16: 503-522
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Pincus AL. A contemporary integrative interpersonal theory of personality disorders. In: Lenzenweger MF, Clarkin JF. Hrsg Major theories of personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005: 282-331
  Google Scholar
• 38 Renneberg B, Schmitz B, Doering S et al. Behandlungsleitlinie Persönlichkeitsstörungen. Psychotherapeut 2010; 55: 339-354
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Simonsen E. A clinician‘s view of the proposed changes. Personal Ment Health 2011; 5: 286-295
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Simonsen S, Simonsen E. Contemporary directions in theories and psychotherapeutic strategies in treatment of personality disorders: Relation to Level of Personality Functioning. J Contemp Psychother 2014; 44: 141-148
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Skodol AE, Morey LC, Bender DS, Oldham JM. The ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5. Personal Disord 2013; 4: 342-349
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Tyrer P. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: A classification of personality disorders that has had its day. Clin Psychol Psychother 2012; 19: 372-374
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 Tyrer P, Crawford M, Mulder R et al. A classification based on evidence is the first step to clinical utility. Personal Ment Health 2011; (a) 5: 304-307
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Tyrer P, Crawford M, Mulder RT et al. The rationale for the reclassification of personality disorder in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Personal Ment Health 2011; (b) 5: 246-259
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 45 Wakefield JC. The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. Am Psychol 1992; 47: 373-388
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 Westen D, Arkowitz-Westen L. Limitations of Axis II in diagnosing personality pathology in clinical practice. Am J Psy­chiatry 1998; 155: 1767-1771
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Westen D, DeFife JA, Bradley B, Hilsenroth MJ. Prototype personality diagnosis in clinical practice: A viable alternative for DSM–5 and ICD–11. Prof Psychol Res Pr 2010; 41: 482-487
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Widiger TA, Simonsen E. Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: finding a common ground. J Pers Disord 2005; 19: 110-130
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Widiger TA, Trull TJ. Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. Am Psychol 2007; 62: 71-83
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Wright AGC, Zimmermann J. At the nexus of science and practice: Answering basic clinical questions in personality disorder assessment and diagnosis with quantitative modeling techniques. In: Huprich SK. Hrsg Personality disorders: AToward theoretical and empirical integration in diagnosis and assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2014
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 51 Yang M, Coid J, Tyrer P. Personality pathology recorded by ­severity: national survey. Br J Psychiatry 2010; 197: 193-199
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 52 Zimmerman MA. A critique of the proposed prototype rating system for personality disorders in DSM-5. J Pers Disord 2011; 25: 206-221
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 53 Zimmermann J, Altenstein D, Krieger T et al. The structure and correlates of self-reported DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits: Findings from two German-speaking samples. J Pers Disord 2014; (a) DOI: 10.1521/pedi_2014_28_130.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 54 Zimmermann J, Benecke C, Bender DS et al. Persönlichkeitsdiagnostik im DSM-5. Psychotherapeut 2013; 58: 455-465
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 55 Zimmermann J, Benecke C, Bender DS et al. Assessing DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning from videotaped clinical interviews: A pilot study with untrained and clinically inexperienced students. J Pers Assess 2014; (b) 96: 397-409
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 56 Zimmermann J, Ehrenthal JC, Cierpka M et al. Assessing the level of structural integration using Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD): Implications for DSM–5. J Pers Assess 2012; 94: 522-532
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 57 Zimmermann J, Masuhr O, Jaeger U et al. Maladaptive Persönlichkeitseigenschaften gemäß DSM-5: Zusammenhänge mit psychischer Belastung und ICD-10 Diagnosen in einer klinischen Stichprobe. Persönlichkeitsstörungen: Theorie und Therapie 2014; (c) 18: 46-58
  PubMedGoogle Scholar