Prevalence of the alternative model of personality disorders diagnoses in populational and at-risk samples, gender and age groups comparisons, and normative data for the LPFS-SR and PID-5

Year:
Reference

Le Corff Y, Lapalme M, Rivard G, L'Écuyer G, Morin R, Forget K, Rolland J-P. (2023). Prevalence of the alternative model of personality disorders diagnoses in populational and at-risk samples, gender and age groups comparisons, and normative data for the LPFS-SR and PID-5. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. 14(6), 591-602.

Abstract

The Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD), introduced in Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), was proposed as a new operationalization of personality disorders (PDs) aiming to overcome the several limitations of the traditional symptom-based model (Waugh et al., 2017; Zimmerman et al., 2019). In the AMPD, PDs are defined by two-dimensional criteria (the level of personality functioning and maladaptive personality traits), but as a hybrid model, it also allows for categorical assessment of PDs (i.e., “hybrid types”) to facilitate continuity with clinical practice. The present study aimed to provide normative data for two widely used instruments assessing Criterion A (Level of Personality Functioning Scale—Self-Report; Morey, 2017) and B (Personality Inventory for DSM-5; Krueger et al., 2012) in a large populational French-Canadian sample. Regarding the categorical assessment, Gamache et al. (2022) recently tested scoring approaches for extracting the PD hybrid types from dimensional measures of the AMPD. In the present study, these approaches were used to estimate prevalence rates for these PD hybrid types in two samples. In the populational sample, results showed that prevalence rates varied from 0.2% (antisocial PDs) to 3.0% (trait-specified PDs), with an overall prevalence of 5.9% to 6.1% for any PD hybrid type. Prevalence was higher in men than in women in the populational sample, but the contrary was observed in the at-risk sample. Prevalence was higher in younger adults than in middle-aged and older adults.

DOI