Contemporary models of personality assessment emphasize a dimensional rather than a categorical framework for measuring an individual’s level of personality functioning. This viewpoint has also been incorporated into official diagnostic manuals, such as the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Assessment instruments for personality functioning according to the AMPD are increasingly being developed and used, but controversies remain regarding the two-factor (vs. one-factor) structure and psychometric properties of such instruments in different countries. To help fill these gaps in the literature, in this study we tested the internal structure, temporal stability, and construct validity of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0), a convenient self-report screening questionnaire of the AMPD level of personality functioning, on a final sample of 482 non-clinical adults (369 females, 112 males, one non-binary; age range = 18–83, M = 34.6, SD = 16.4). Internal structure of the Italian LPFS-BF 2.0 was tested by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Temporal stability and construct validity of the total score and of the Self and Interpersonal functioning subscale scores were tested using Pearson’s correlations and Steiger’s Test. A two-factor structure for the LPFS-BF 2.0 was supported, and correlation analyses provided convergent and discriminant validity evidence for the total and the two Self and Interpersonal subscale scores against external self-report measures of problematic self and interpersonal functioning, overall personality dysfunction, general psychological symptoms and lower quality of life. As such, the total score and the two Self and Interpersonal subscales yielded correlations with external criteria of medium to large effect sizes (i.e., Pearson’s r), all significant at the p < .001 level. Finally, the present study provides the first empirical assessment of the LPFS-BF 2.0 temporal stability over an interval of 11.5 weeks, demonstrating a high temporal stability for both the total scale and the two subscales (rs above .70 for all three, ps < .001). The Italian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 yielded similar psychometric properties to the original scale and other international adaptations, suggesting its utility for personality assessment research and practice.

This study presents the adaptation to the Italian context of the Relationship Profile Test (RPT; Bornstein & Languirand), a self-report measure of Destructive Overdependence (DO), Dysfunctional Detachment (DD), and Healthy Dependency (HD). The RPT was administered to a community sample of 661 nonclinical Italian adults together with the Attachment Style Questionnaire, the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Self-Compassion Scale, the Positive Affect-Negative Affect Scale, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. A randomly selected subset of participants (n = 67) completed the RPT again approximately 5 months after the first administration. The factor structure of the RPT obtained in the main sample was compared with that obtained in a sample of 603 adult participants from the US and was found to be similar. Internal consistency for DO, DD, and HD scores in the Italian sample fell between the acceptable to good range, and test-retest reliability coefficients were all above .70. The three scales yielded the expected pattern of correlations with theoretically related constructs, documenting good criterion validity. Findings are discussed in light of the literature on the RPT as a measure of interpersonal dependency and detachment. Suggestions for future research are offered.

We used self-reported narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability and a component derived from 11 potential grandiosity and narcissism variables (GNVs) coded from Rorschach behavior to predict fluctuations in self-esteem and their links to anger and defensive reactions. We assessed state mood, state self-esteem, and performance attributions in 105 college students who underwent a self-esteem manipulation involving success followed by failure on cognitive testing. Self-reported grandiosity predicted the disavowal of effortful ability as a factor in failure, but we did not replicate other previously reported findings for this variable. Self-reported vulnerability predicted oscillations in self-reported mood and self-esteem. The GNV scale predicted spontaneously expressed hostility and externalization following self-esteem insult, and attributions mediated its relationship with anger expressed after failure. We discuss implications of these results and recommend additional replication research.

Background: COVID-19 has limited pregnant and postpartum women’s access to mental health services, leading to the introduction of online interventions. Objectives: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of telepsychotherapy (i.e., psychotherapy provided through digital technology supporting real-time interactivity in the audio or audiovisual modality) with the one yielded by face-to-face interventions in treating perinatal depression and anxiety and to assess the therapist’s perceived alliance in both interventions. Methods: We collected anamnestic information and obstetrical risk factors for 61 women. We evaluated the effectiveness of face-to-face (N = 31) vs. telepsychotherapy (N = 30) interventions on depressive and anxiety symptoms at baseline (T0) and the end of treatment (T1) using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y 1 and 2). We assessed the degree of alliance perceived by therapists with the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-T). Results: Both groups showed significant decreases in depressive (EPDS face-to-face: T0 12.65 ± 5.81, T1 5.77 ± 4.63, p < 0.001; EPDS remote: T0 11.93 ± 5.24, T1 5.70 ± 4.46, p < 0.001; effect size: 0.002) and state anxiety (STAI-Y 1 face-to-face: T0 51.19 ± 13.73, T1 40.23 ± 12.86, p < 0.001; STAI-Y 1 remote: T0 51.10 ± 11.29, T1 38.00 ± 10.90, p < 0.001; effect size: 0.007//STAI-Y 2 face-to-face: T0 43.13 ± 12.11, T1 41.03 ± 13.06, p = 0.302; STAI-Y 2 remote: T0 44.20 ± 8.70, T1 39.30 ± 9.58, p = 0.003; effect size: <0.001) symptoms by the end of treatment. Women treated remotely also experienced a significant reduction in trait anxiety at T1 (p = 0.003). We found no significant differences in either symptomatology (EPDS; STAI-Y) between the two interventions at baseline or in the therapist-perceived alliance. Conclusions: Synchronous telepsychotherapy for perinatal depression and anxiety showed comparable treatment response to face-to-face interventions, with both modalities associated with significant symptom reduction and the establishment of a working alliance. These findings support the potential of telepsychotherapy as a valuable alternative when in-person services are not accessible, especially during emergency contexts.