![](https://d3ilqtpdwi981i.cloudfront.net/mLouTrNwEUNVzscStm1kOMa5dcg=/425x550/smart/https://bepress-attached-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/00/e7/d4/00e7d4e1-2dd7-4777-84cf-652f90392576/thumbnail_BPFile%20object.jpg)
Background. Several conceptual models have been considered for the assessment of personality pathology in DSM-5. This study sought to extend our previous findings to compare the long-term predictive validity of three such models: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP), and DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs).
Method. An inception cohort from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorder Study (CLPS) was followed for 10 years. Baseline data were used to predict long-term outcomes, including functioning, Axis I psychopathology, and medication use.
Results. Each model was significantly valid, predicting a host of important clinical outcomes. Lower-order elements of the FFM system were not more valid than higher-order factors, and DSM-IV diagnostic categories were less valid than dimensional symptom counts. Approaches that integrate normative traits and personality pathology proved to be most predictive, as the SNAP, a system that integrates normal and pathological traits, generally showed the largest validity coefficients overall, and the DSM-IV PD syndromes and FFM traits tended to provide substantial incremental information relative to one another.
Conclusions. DSM-5 PD assessment should involve an integration of personality traits with characteristic features of PDs.
- CLPS,
- Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Study,
- SNAP,
- DSM,
- DSM-IV,
- Axis I,
- Axis II,
- Personality Disorders,
- Borderline,
- Schizotypal,
- Avoidant,
- Obsessive-Compulsive