Full Text Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the course for this article: AJP CME Course for April 2009: Can Clinicians Recognize DSM-IV Personality ... Data Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by Rottman, B. M. Articles by Kim, N. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by Rottman, B. M. Articles by Kim, N. S. Borderline Personality Disorders Other Personality Disorders Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders DSM Related Article

Can Clinicians Recognize DSM-IV Personality Disorders From Five-Factor Model Descriptions of Patient Cases?

OBJECTIVE: This article examined, using theories from cognitive science, the clinical utility of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of Personality, an assessment and classification system under consideration for integration into the forthcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders. Specifically, the authors sought to test whether FFM descriptors are specific enough to allow practicing clinicians to capture core features of personality disorders. METHOD: In two studies, a large nationwide sample of clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and clinical social workers (N=187 and N=191) were presented case profiles based on symptom formats from either the DSM-IV and/or FFM. Ratings for six aspects of clinical utility for DSM-IV and FFM profiles were obtained and participants provided DSM-IV diagnoses. Prototypic cases (only one personality disorder) and comorbid cases were tested in separate studies. RESULTS: Participants rated the DSM-IV as more clinically useful than the FFM on five out of six clinical utility questions. Despite demonstrating considerable background knowledge of DSM-IV diagnoses, participants had difficulty identifying correct diagnoses from FFM profiles. CONCLUSION: The FFM descriptors may be more ambiguous than the criteria of the DSM-IV and the FFM may therefore be less able to convey important clinical details than the DSM-IV. The findings flag challenges to clinical utility for dimensional-trait systems such as the FFM.

Related Article:

In This Issue
Am J Psychiatry 2009 166: A16. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. E. Skodol and D. S. Bender The Future of Personality Disorders in DSM-V? Am J Psychiatry, April 1, 2009; 166(4): 388 - 391. [Full Text] [PDF]

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2009 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us