W&M ScholarWorks W&M ScholarWorks
Arts & Sciences Articles Arts and Sciences
2-2-2018
The time has come for dimensional personality disorder The time has come for dimensional personality disorder
diagnosis diagnosis
Christopher J. Hopwood
chopwoodmsu@gmail.com
Roman Kotov
Robert F. Krueger
David Watson
Thomas A. Widiger
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/aspubs
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., ... & Bornovalova, M. A.
(2018). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personality and mental health,
12(1), 82-86.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Arts and Sciences at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Arts & Sciences Articles by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more
information, please contact scholarworks@wm.edu.
Authors Authors
Christopher J. Hopwood, Roman Kotov, Robert F. Krueger, David Watson, Thomas A. Widiger, Robert R.
Althoff, Emily B. Ansell, Bo Bach, R. Michael Bagby, Mark A. Blais, Marina A. Bornovalova, Michael
Chmielewski, David C. Cicero, Christopher Conway conway@wm.edu, Barbara De Clercq, Filip De Fruyt,
Anna R. Docherty, Nicholas R. Eaton, John F. Edens, Miriam K. Forbes, Kelsie T. Forbush, Michael P.
Hengartner, Masha Y. Ivanova, Daniel Leising, and W. John Livesley
This article is available at W&M ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/aspubs/88
Commentary
The time has come for dimensional personality
disorder diagnosis
CHRISTOPHER J. HOPWOOD
1
, ROMAN KOTOV
2
, ROBERT F. KRUEGER
3
,
DAVID WATSON
4
, THOMAS A. WIDIGER
5
, ROBERT R. ALTHOFF
6
, EMILY B. ANSELL
7
,
BO BACH
8
, R. MICHAEL BAGBY
9
, MARK A. BLAIS
10
, MARINA A. BORNOVALOVA
11
,
MICHAEL CHMIELEWSKI
12
, DAVID C. CICERO
13
, CHRISTOPHER CONWAY
14
,
BARBARA DE CLERCQ
15
, FILIP DE FRUYT
15
, ANNA R. DOCHERTY
16
, NICHOLAS
R. EATON
2
, JOHN F. EDENS
17
, MIRIAM K. FORBES
3
, KELSIE T. FORBUSH
18
, MICHAEL
P. HENGARTNER
19
, MASHA Y. IVANOVA
6
, DANIEL LEISING
20
, W. JOHN LIVESLEY
21
,
MARK R. LUKOWITSKY
22
, DONALD R. LYNAM
23
, KRISTIAN E. MARKON
24
, JOSHUA
D. MILLER
25
, LESLIE C. MOREY
17
, STEPHANIE N. MULLINS-SWEATT
26
, J. HANS
ORMEL
27
, CHRISTOPHER J. PATRICK
28
, AARON L. PINCUS
29
, CAMILO RUGGERO
30
,
DOUGLAS B. SAMUEL
23
, MARTIN SELLBOM
31
, TIM SLADE
32
, JENNIFER L. TACKETT
33
,
KATHERINE M. THOMAS
23
, TIMOTHY J. TRULL
34
, DAVID D. VACHON
35
, IRWIN
D. WALDMAN
36
, MONIKA A. WASZCZUK
2
, MARK H. WAUGH
37
, AIDAN G.
C. WRIGHT
38
, MATHEW M. YALCH
39
, DAVID H. ZALD
40
AND
JOHANNES ZIMMERMANN
41
,
1
University of California, Davis, Davis California, USA;
2
Stony
Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA;
3
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN,
USA;
4
University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, USA;
5
University of Kentucky, Lexington,
KY, USA;
6
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA;
7
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY,
USA;
8
Region Zealand Psychiatry, Roskilde, Denmark;
9
University of Toronto, Scarborough, To-
ronto, ON, Canada;
10
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA;
11
University of South Florida,
Tampa, Florida, USA;
12
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA;
13
University of Hawai’i,
Honolulu, HI, USA;
14
College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA;
15
University of Ghent,
Ghent, Belgium;
16
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;
17
Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX, USA;
18
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA;
19
Zurich University of Applied Sci-
ences, Zurich, Switzerland;
20
Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany;
21
University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;
22
Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA;
23
Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN, USA;
24
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA;
25
University of
Georgia, Athens, GA, USA;
26
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA;
27
University of
Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;
28
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA;
29
Penn-
sylvania State University, State College, PA, USA;
30
University of North Texas, Dallas, TX, USA;
31
University of Otago, Otago, New Zealand;
32
University of New South Wales, Kensington, New
South Wales, Australia;
33
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA;
34
University of Missouri,
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 12:82–86 (2018)
DOI: 10.1002/pmh
Personality and Mental Health
12:82–86 (2018)
Published online 11 December 2017 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/pmh.1408
Columbia, MO, USA;
35
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CA;
36
Emory University, Atlanta,
GA, USA;
37
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA;
38
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA;
39
Marian University, Indianapolis, IN, USA;
40
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN,
USA;
41
Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Berlin, Germany
The committee revising the ICD-11 Mental or
Behavioural Disorders section ‘Personality Disor-
ders and Related Traits’ has proposed replacing
categorical personality disorders with a severity
gradient ranging from personality difficulties to se-
vere personality disorder and five trait domains:
negative affectivity, dissocial, disinhibition,
anankastic and detachment
1
. While acknowledg-
ing that there are multiple potential pathways for
moving toward a more evidence-based and
clinically useful scheme for classifying personality
dysfunction, we applaud and support the proposed
transition from a categorical model of personality
disorder types, which has proven to be empirically
problematic and of limited clinical utility, to a
dimensional model of personality disorder that
has considerable connection to scientific evidence
and potential for clinical application.
There is no evidence supporting the hypotheses
that personality disorders are categorical
2,3
or that
there are 10 (or any other number of) discrete types
of personality disorder
4
. Well-established problems
with categorical personality disorder diagnosis such
as low reliability, diagnostic comorbidity and
within-disorder heterogeneity complicate research
and treatment
5
. There are no validated interven-
tions for most of the categorical personality disorders,
and although several psychotherapies from different
theoretical perspectives have been developed for
borderline personality disorder that have evidence
of moderate efficacy, none have proven to be rela-
tively more effective than any of the others
6
.Evi-
dence for treatment mechanisms is sparse, and
thereisnoevidencethatexistingapproacheshave
specificefficacy for borderline personality disorder
as opposed to general effica cy for a variety of psychi-
atric difficulties
7
.
In contrast, there is a vast body of empirical
literature supporting dimensional models of
personality disorder that are closely aligned with
the proposed model
8–11
, inaddition to the emerg-
ing body of work on the specific dimensions pro-
posed for ICD-11
12–19
. The ICD-11 proposal has
two elements. The severity dimension has ties to
the psychodynamic tradition
20,21
, which has histor-
ically been at the forefront of personality disorder
classification, and aligns with a number of
empirical efforts to quantify general personality
dysfunction (e.g.
22–27
). Research demonstrates that
much of the predictive and prognostic value in
personality disorder data can be derived from such
a dimension
28
.
The personality trait model proposed for ICD-11
resembles other dimensional models of personality
such as the Five-Factor Model or the DSM-5
Alternative Model for Personality Disorders
16,29,30
. Although there are some important differ-
ences between the ICD-11 proposal and these other
models that will be adjudicated by future research,
the more important point at this stage is that
evidence consistently supports the validity of
dimensional trait models for describing individual
differences in personality. In contrast to the cate-
gorical model of personality disorder types, there is
a large literature on the genetic underpinnings,
cross-cultural validity, course, correlates and
measurement of broad personality traits
11,31
.Dimen-
sional models also address issues such as comorbidity
and heterogeneity in a direct and empirically tracta-
ble manner
8
; recapture but empirically reorganize
the information provided by personality disorder
types
32
; and have considerable potential for guiding
and tracking treatment
33,34
.Wewouldhighlight
that research has repeatedly shown that the border-
line personality disorder construct in particular
can be accounted for by empirically derived dimen-
sions of personality traits and functioning
35–40
.
Nevertheless, some people in the field continue
to argue in favour of personality diagnosis by
categorical types. We are concerned about the
83The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 12:82–86 (2018)
DOI: 10.1002/pmh
implications of retaining a categorical system that
has been so thoroughly shown to be empirically
and clinically problematic. It is very difficult to jus-
tify allocating resources toward continued research
on an approach that has proven to be fundamen-
tally flawed, as opposed to a dimensional model that
points to exciting new avenues for research on
aetiology, mechanisms and treatment (e.g.
41
). We
are likewise concerned about the implications that
retaining a demonstrably problematic model has
for patients’ lives. It would be very unsettling to be
told that one’s problems are due to a specificmedi-
cal condition, only to learn later that the supposed
condition had been abandoned by the medical
community. It is probably already confusing for
patients, who might discover via an internet search
on their personality diagnosis that much of the field
does not believe such a disorder actually exists. It
would be far preferable to be straightforward with
our patients about what we know and do not know
regarding personality and its related problems than
to label them with legacy diagnoses that will not
stand the test of time.
Reasonable concerns have been expressed
about challenges associated with the transition
from a categorical to a dimensional model of
personality disorder. Such concerns need to be bal-
anced against several field surveys that show that a
majority of clinicians and researchers support the
transition to a more dimensional, evidence-based
framework
42–44
. We acknowledge that the transi-
tion to a dimensional model needs to be thoughtful
with regard to issues such as third-party reimburse-
ment. Moreover, we recognize that legal, commu-
nity mental health and other systems will need to
be educated regarding how to translate from the
old system to the new. However, we do not believe
that these practical issues provide a compelling
rationale for retaining a system that does not effec-
tively capture individual differences in patients’
personality difficulties. In contrast, moving forward
with an evidence-based framework for diagnosing
personality disorders has significant potential to
stimulate research that can lead to new treatments
and aetiological models that will ultimately reduce
the burden of personality disorders on patients,
families and society. The changes proposed for
ICD-11 also provide a generative model for con-
ceptualizing the meta-structure of psychopathol-
ogy. Indeed, there are clear phenotypic and
genetic links between the dimensions proposed
for ICD-11 and a number of mental health
conditions beyond personality disorders
45,46
.
Past scientists believed that the sun revolved
around the earth, the brain was organized accord-
ing to the principles of phrenology, and spirits
were responsible for psychiatric problems. It is a
testament to science that these views gave way
to a more accurate model of nature. The new per-
spectives that replaced them contributed to major
advancements in astronomy, neuroscience and
mental health. Likewise, the evidence is clear that
personality disorders do not exist as 10 discrete
types. The categorical model has become a hin-
drance to research and practice. As an example,
see the unfortunate outcome of the DSM-5 revi-
sion process, in which a model that is not sup-
ported by evidence or the majority of the field
was retained as the official diagnostic scheme de-
spite the viable alternative proposed by the Per-
sonality and Personality Disorders Work Group,
published in Section III of DSM-5. It is time for
the field to transition to a model that fits research
data and clinical reality. The ICD-11 proposal
connects psychiatric classification of personality
disorder manifestations with scientific evidence.
The proposed changes would enhance diagnostic
efficiency and patient care while spurring research
that can further improve the assessment and
treatment of psychopathology. As clinicians and
researchers who have dedicated our careers to un-
derstanding and helping people with personality
pathology, we urge the ICD-11 PD work group
to remain committed to an evidence-based
revision of personality disorder diagnosis.
References
1. Tyrer P, Crawford M, Mulder R. Reclassifying personality
disorders. Lancet 2011; 377: 1814–5.
84 Christopher J. Hopwood et al.
Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 12:82–86 (2018)
DOI: 10.1002/pmh