The new version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual

The new version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, DSM-5, suggests an alternative model to diagnosing personality disorders. Chmielewski et al. (2017).pdf provides a comparative overview of the new, alternative trait-based model and the traditional personality disorder model. Please identify which side of the argument you will debate.

Needs to include: The new version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual

– criticize aspects of the emerging issue and present a side of the debate in a rational manner (for example, in justifying the use of a method with a selected population).

– identify at least two critical dilemmas and/or points related to the issue (for example, ethical/socio-cultural concerns).

– use APA citations/references when referring to findings support your side of the debate The new version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual

– defend your position on the debate with compelling arguments and predict future trends

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

Michael Chmielewski Southern Methodist University

Camilo J. Ruggero University of North Texas

Roman Kotov Stony Brook University

Keke Liu University of North Texas

Robert F. Krueger University of Minnesota

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) includes two competing models of personality psychopathology: the traditional personality disorder (PD) model included in Section II and an alternative trait-based model included in Section III. The validity of the alternative trait model and its official assessment tool, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012), has been the subject of numerous investigations. The new version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual

Few research, however, have empirically directly compared the trait-based model to the conventional PD model using the same dataset. Furthermore, the PID-5’s dependability, which is a crucial aspect of construct validity for traits (Chmielewski & Watson, 2009; McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2011), has only been studied in one study to our knowledge (Suzuki, Griffin, & Samuel, 2015). In the current study, a sizable undergraduate sample was used to examine the reliability of the DSM-5 features as measured by the PID-5 with the conventional PD model as measured by the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4).

It also assessed and contrasted their relationships to functioning, another crucial aspect of personality illness. The majority of DSM-5 features, according to our research, show high levels of dependability that are superior to those found in the conventional PD model. However, some of the constructs measured by the PID-5 may be more state-like. In terms of their correlations with functionality, the models were basically equal. The recent findings add to the body of evidence supporting the reliability of PID-5 and the Section III personality pathology model in the DSM-5. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual has been updated. The new version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual

Keywords: dependability, PID-5, functioning, personality disorders, DSM–5 Section III

The fifth edition the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) includes two competing models of personality pathology: the traditional categorical personality disorder (PD) model from DSM–IV and an alternative trait-based model in Section III. Prob- The new version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual

lems with the traditional PD model have been extensively re- viewed (Clark, 2007; Widiger & Samuel, 2005; Widiger & Trull, 2007). They include extreme heterogeneity (Chmielewski & Wat- son, 2008; Johansen, Karterud, Pedersen, Gude, & Falkum, 2004), high rates of diagnostic comorbidity (Oldham et al., 1992), arbi- trary boundaries with normality (Widiger & Samuel, 2005), low interrater reliability (Tyrer et al., 2007), poor convergent/discrim- inant validity (Clark, Livesley, & Morey, 1997), excessive not otherwise specified diagnosis (Verheul & Widiger, 2004), and low diagnostic stability (Shea et al., 2002; Skodol et al., 2005).

Considerable research has been conducted on the DSM–5 alter- native model and the official assessment instrument for the trait aspect of the model, the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). Numerous studies have demonstrated the structural validity of the PID-5 (De Fruyt et al., 2013; Krueger et al., 2012; Wright et al., 2012; Zimmermann et al., 2014). Moreover, the DSM–5 traits capture the variance within the traditional PD model (Hopwood, Thomas, Markon, Wright, & Krueger, 2012; Miller, Few, Lynam, & MacK-

This article was published Online First September 12, 2016. Michael Chmielewski, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist

University; Camilo J. Ruggero, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas; Roman Kotov, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stony Brook University; Keke Liu, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas; Robert F. Krueger, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota. The new version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual

Robert Krueger has served as a paid consultant to preValio LLC, developers of psychological reports based on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). The new version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael Chmielewski, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, PO Box 75275-0442, Dallas, TX 75275. E-mail: mchmielewski@smu.edu