Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:55:43.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15b - The Need for a More Rigorous Approach to Diagnostic Reliability: Commentary on Categorical Assessment of Personality Disorders

from Part IV - Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2020

By
Michael Chmielewski  and
Mayson Trujillo
Edited by
Carl W. Lejuez  and
Kim L. Gratz
Carl W. Lejuez
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Kim L. Gratz
Affiliation:
University of Toledo, Ohio
Get access

Summary

Diagnostic reliability receives cursory attention in the literature with wide ranges of kappa coefficients often interpreted as “adequate.” Moreover, the vast majority of personality disorder (PD) kappa estimates, including those reviewed by Flory (this chapter), are derived from the audio/video recording method. This method results in inflated estimates of diagnostic reliability, which provides limited insight into whether patients would receive the same diagnosis at different hospitals or clinics and whether researchers are studying similar patients. A more rigorous and ecologically valid method for assessing diagnostic reliability is the test-retest method. Although echoing some of Flory’s points, the authors here disagree with her assertion that categorical PDs demonstrate acceptable reliability. In fact, the reliability of categorical PDs assessed using the test-retest method is far lower than the DSM-5 conceptualization would indicate. Moreover, the test-retest diagnostic reliability of categorical PDs fails to achieve minimal benchmarks established in the “normal” personality literature, indicating critical problems for the DSM-5 categorical model. If the goal is to provide optimal patient care and advance clinical science, then adopting the trait-based dimensional model of personality pathology from section III of DSM-5 is necessary.

Keywords

diagnostic reliabilitydependabilitypersonality disordersdimensional models
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Disorders , pp. 369 - 372
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
Bernstein, D. B., Iscan, C., Maser, J., & Boards of the Directors of ARPD and ISSPD (2007). Opinions of personality disorder experts regarding the DSM-IV personality disorders classification system. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(5), 536–551.Google Scholar
Blashfield, R. K., & Livesley, W. J. (1991). Metaphorical analysis of psychiatric classification as a psychological test. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(3), 262–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chmielewski, M., Clark, L. A., Bagby, R. M., & Watson, D. (2015). Method matters: Understanding diagnostic reliability in DSM-IV and DSM-5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(3), 764–769.Google Scholar
Chmielewski, M., Ruggero, C. J., Kotov, R., Liu, K., & Krueger, R. F. (2017). Comparing the dependability and associations with functioning of the DSM-5 Section III trait model of personality pathology and the DSM-5 Section II personality disorder model. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8(3), 228–236.Google Scholar
Chmielewski, M., & Watson, D. (2009). What is being assessed and why it matters: The impact of transient error on trait research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 186–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 227–257.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. E., Narrow, W. E., Regier, D. A., Kuramoto, S. J., Kupfer, D. J., Kuhl, E. A., … Kraemer, H. C. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part I: Study design, sampling strategy, implementation, and analytic approaches. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 43–58.Google Scholar
De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., Bolle, M. D., Wille, B., Markon, K., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). General and maladaptive traits in a Five-Factor Framework for DSM-5 in a university student sample. Assessment, 20(3), 295–307.Google Scholar
Gnambs, T. (2014). A meta-analysis of dependability coefficients (test–retest reliabilities) for measures of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 20–28.Google Scholar
Helzer, J. E., Wittchen, H.-U., Krueger, R. F., & Kraemer, H. C. (2008). Dimensional options for DSM-V: The way forward. In Helzer, J. E., Kraemer, H. C., Krueger, R. F., Wittchen, H.-U., Sirovatka, P. J., & Regier, D. A. (Eds.), Dimensional Approaches in Diagnostic Classification: Refining the Research Agenda for DSM-V (pp. 115–127). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., … Blais, M. A. (2018). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personality and Mental Health, 12(1), 82–86.Google Scholar
Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., Wright, A. G. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). DSM-5 personality traits and DSM–IV personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(2), 424–432.Google Scholar
Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G., Krueger, R. F., Schade, N., Markon, K. E., & Morey, L. C. (2013). DSM-5 pathological personality traits and the personality assessment inventory. Assessment, 20(3), 269–285.Google Scholar
Hopwood, C. J., Zimmermann, J., Pincus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2015). Connecting personality structure and dynamics: Towards a more evidence-based and clinically useful diagnostic scheme. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(4), 431–448.Google Scholar
Kraemer, H. C., Kupfer, D. J., Clarke, D. E., Narrow, W. E., & Regier, D. A. (2012). DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? American Journal of Psychiatry, 169(1), 13–15.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markon, K. E., Chmielewski, M., & Miller, C. J. (2011). The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: A quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 856–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 28–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Lynam, D. R., & MacKillop, J. (2015). Pathological personality traits can capture DSM-IV personality disorder types. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6(1), 32–40.Google Scholar
Nathan, P. E., & Langenbucher, J. W. (1999). Psychopathology: Description and classification. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 79–107.Google Scholar
Nelson, S. M., Huprich, S. K., Shankar, S., Sohnleitner, A., & Paggeot, A. V. (2017). A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of trainee opinions of four methods of personality disorder diagnosis. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8(3), 217–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quilty, L. C., Ayearst, L., Chmielewski, M., Pollock, B. G., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). The psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA DSM-5 field trial sample. Assessment, 20(3), 362–369.Google Scholar
Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kraemer, H. C., Kuramoto, S. J., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer, D. J. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: Test-retest reliability of selected categorical diagnoses. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 59–70.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T., Griffin, S. A., & Samuel, D. B. (2016). Capturing the DSM-5 Alternative Personality Disorder Model Traits in the Five-Factor Model’s nomological net. Journal of Personality, 85(2), 220–231.Google Scholar
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., Useda, J. D., Holcomb, J., Doan, B. T., Axelrod, S. R., … & Gershuny, B. S. (1998). A structured interview for the assessment of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widiger, T. A., & Samuel, D. B. (2005). Diagnostic categories or dimensions? A question for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth Edition. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(4), 494–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62(2), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×