Background: The 11th version of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) has adopted a dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) nosology. Notably, it includes an assessment of PD degree of severity, which can be classified according to five categories. To date, there is no gold standard measure for assessing degree of PD severity based on the ICD-11 model, and there are no empirically-based anchor points to delineate the proposed categories. With the operationalization of PD degrees of severity in the ICD-11 PD model now being closely aligned with Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD), sharing a focus on self and interpersonal dysfunction, self-report instruments developed for the latter model might prove useful as screening tools to determine degrees of severity in the former.Methods: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale, a brief validated self-report questionnaire originally designed to assess level of personality pathology according to the AMPD framework, was used to derive anchor points to delineate the five severity degrees from the ICD-11 PD model. Data from five clinical and non-clinical samples (total N = 2,240) allowed identifying anchor points for classification, based on Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis, Latent Class Analysis, and data distribution statistics. Categories were validated using multiple indices pertaining to externalizing and internalizing symptoms relevant to PD.Results: Analyses yielded the following anchor points for PD degrees of severity: No PD = 0–1.04; Personality Difficulty = 1.05–1.29; Mild PD = 1.30–1.89; Moderate PD = 1.90–2.49; and Severe PD = 2.50 and above. A clear gradient of severity across the five categories was observed in all samples. A high number of significant contrasts among PD categories were also observed on external variables, consistent with the ICD-11 PD degree of severity operationalization.Conclusions: The present study provides potentially useful guidelines to determine severity of personality pathology based on the ICD-11 model. The use of a brief self-report questionnaire as a screening tool for assessing PD degrees of severity should be seen as a time-efficient support for clinical decision and treatment planning.

Background: There have been multiple attempts to try to parse out heterogeneity within borderline pathology by identifying patient subtypes; thus far, these works have yielded few consistent results. Recent developments in the operationalization of borderline pathology may provide new opportunities to identify clinically and conceptually meaningful subgroups of patients. The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) offers a categorical-dimensional operationalization of Borderline personality disorder (BPD) that has yet to be tested for identification of patient subgroups. The purpose of the present study is to test whether the combination of the Criterion A elements (pertaining to level of severity) and the seven pathological facets from Criterion B that define BPD in the AMPD can yield meaningful patient profiles. Methods: A total of 211 outpatients from a specialized PD treatment program (133 women, Mage = 33.66, SD = 10.97) were selected based on the presence of at least moderate borderline pathology according to cutoffs recently proposed for the Borderline Symptom List-23. Valid Criterion A (Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Faceted Brief Form) self-reports were administered to measure elements and facets that define BPD in the AMPD model; these variables were used as indicators in a latent profile analysis (LPA). Results: The optimal solution generated by LPA yielded four distinct profiles: (a) Borderline traits; (b) Moderate pathology with Impulsivity; (c) Moderate pathology with Identity problems and Depressivity; and (d) Severe pathology. Clinically meaningful distinctions emerged among profiles on AMPD indicators and external variables relevant to PD, especially aggression and impulsivity. Conclusions: Profiles reflected both the “severity” and “style” components imbedded within Criterion A and B of the AMPD, as they were mainly distinguished by a continuum of severity but also by some meaningful qualitative differences that may have important clinical implications for treatment planning and contracting. Results also suggest that the four Criterion A elements have independent value to identify important differences in patients with borderline pathology. They also highlight that some Criterion B facets that define BPD in the AMPD may be especially important to identify subgroups of patients, mainly Impulsivity and Depressivity.

The goal of this study (N = 432 participants from a community sample) is to report on the psychometric properties of a French adaptation of the Expanded Version of the Three-Factor Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (E-LSRP), which was developed to alleviate some shortcomings of the original LSRP. A three correlated factor exploratory structural equation modeling model showed the best fits and attained satisfactory indices. There were significant, conceptually meaningful associations with measures of Dark Triad traits, pathological narcissism, empathy, impulsivity, substance misuse, and social desirability. Incremental validity over a 19-item scale proposed by Brinkley et al. was also mostly demonstrated, especially for convergent validity. Overall, the French E-LSRP possesses sound psychometric properties, comparable for the most part with the original instrument, and should be seen as a useful measure of psychopathic traits in community samples.

The goal of the present study was to establish profiles of patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) who dropped out early from an outpatient psychotherapy program. From a sample of 56 BPD patients who dropped out after the first of a three-year program, a TwoStep cluster analysis procedure was performed, using the five factors of the Treatment Attrition-Retention Scale for Personality Disorders (Gamache et al., J Pers Disord 1–21, 2017) and the Global Assessment of Functioning score (Spitzer et al., Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF] Scale. In Sederer LI, Dickey B [Eds], Outcomes assessment in clinical practice [pp 76–78]. Baltimore, MD: Walter and Williams) as clustering variables. Four clusters emerged: Higher-functioning, Narcissistic features/entitlement, Pseudo-normality, and Highly dysfunctional. Differences between the clusters were found on sex, occupational status, and presence of antisocial features. These findings could help both identify BPD patients at potential risk of dropping out of psychotherapy and adjust interventions accordingly to reduce premature termination.