The reconceptualisation of German traditional constructs of subaffective personality disorders (PDs) was stimulated by clinical and some empirical evidence of mild and enduring alterations of mood and drive in patients who never developed one of the full-blown mood disorders. The aim of the study was to clarify the status of historical concepts of subaffective PDs (as there are the depressive, hyperthymic, cyclothymic, and asthenic type) in relation to the modern Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)-III-R conceptions of personality disorders and the five factor theory of personality. A consecutive psychiatric sample and a normal control sample were used to investigate these relationships. By means of a non-metric multi-dimensional scaling procedure, and facet theoretical interpretation, the depressive and asthenic PDs were demonstrated to correspond highly with the global construct of PD as well as with the personality factor neuroticism which proved to be elevated in most types of PDs within the clinical sample. The hyperthymic and cyclothymic categories displayed differences to most DSM-III-R constructs of PD in the clinical but not in the control sample. The findings may explain the chronic course of some depressive or somatization disorders that are difficult to influence by pharmacotherapy and that may require special treatment strategies.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Spanish-language version of the Diagnostic Interview for Depressive Personality (DIDP). The DIDP was administered to 328 consecutive outpatients and the test–retest and inter-rater reliability were assessed. Factor analysis was used in search of factors capable of explaining the scale and a cutoff point was established. The DIDP scales showed adequate Cronbach's α values and acceptable test–retest and inter-rater reliability coefficients. Convergent and discriminant validity were explored, the latter with respect to avoidant and borderline personality disorders. The results of the factor analysis were consistent with the four-factor structure of the DIDP scales. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed the area under the curve to be 0.848. We found 30 to be a good cutoff point, with a sensitivity of 74.5% and a specificity of 78.5%. The DIDP proved to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing depressive personality disorder, at least among our outpatients. The psychometric properties of the DIDP support its clinical usefulness in assessing depressive personality.