Encouraging further research on the dimensional assessment of personality disorders (PDs), Section III of the DSM-5 introduced a hybrid model for the assessment of six PDs employing self-reports on 25 maladaptive personalitytraits (“DSM-5personalitytraits”). Following suggestions that multidimensionalperfectionism is an important characteristic across various personality disorders (Ayearst, Flett, & Hewitt, 2012), the present study investigated how personal (self-oriented) and interpersonal (other-oriented and socially prescribed) aspects of perfectionism predicted the DSM-5personalitytraits in a sample of 311 university students. Multiple regressions (controlling for the overlap between the different forms of perfectionism) showed that socially prescribed perfectionism positively predicted the traits defining schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive PD; other-oriented perfectionism positively predicted the traits defining narcissistic PD; and both socially prescribed and other-oriented perfectionism positively predicted the traits defining antisocial PD. In contrast, self-oriented perfectionism positively predicted only one of the four traits defining obsessive-compulsive PD (rigid perfectionism). Showing that multidimensionalperfectionism predicted all DSM-5traits defining the personality disorders of Section III, the findings suggest that future DSM-5 updates may profit from including interpersonal aspects of perfectionism as a diagnostic criterion.
Criterion B (PersonalityTraits). Whereas PDs in the traditional model are defined by reference to behavioural criteria, the AMPD defines PDs by particular constellations of personalitytraits (examples of “personalitytraits” include impulsivity, anxiousness and hostility). Drawing on literature demonstrating that four to five broad trait domains can reliably be distinguished in personality psychopathology (De Clercq, De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, & Mervielde, 2006; Harkness & McNulty, 1994; Krueger et al., 2011; Livesley, Jang, & Vernon, 1998; Rossi, Elklit, & Simonsen, 2010; Wright et al., 2012), the AMPD utilises a dimensional personality trait model comprised of five broad domains (antagonism, detachment, disinhibition, negative affectivity, and psychoticism). Under these five domains sit a total of 25 trait facets, with each domain containing between three and seven facets (see Table 1.1; APA, 2013). These 25 trait facets have been found to represent the maladaptive extremes of the traits used in the five-factor model of personality (the most widely used model of personality and individual differences in the literature (Widiger & Costa, 2012).
However, despite its established reliability and validity, the length of the PID-5 may limit its use in clinical prac- tice and research. On the other hand, the brief form of the PID-5 assesses only the broad domains of the trait model, but does not cover the trait facets, which are par- ticularly informative for the clinician. Using item re- sponse theory, Maples et al.  developed an abridged form of the PID-5 with a smaller set of items (four items per scale). The shortened PID-5 (hereafter referred to as PID-5-SF) showed adequate internal consistency with alpha coefficients ranging from .89 to .91 (trait domains) and .74 to .88 (trait facets) with means of .90 and .83, re- spectively. The factor structure of the PID-5-SF was highly similar to the original form (congruency coeffi- cients from .93 to .99). The convergent correlations ranged for the domains from .96 to .98 (mean .97) and from .89 to 1.0 (mean .94) for the facets. The similarity of the discriminant validity of the original and shortened PID-5 (the pattern of the correlations of a given domain with the four other domains) was .98. Finally, the criter- ion validity with the FFM, interviewer-rated Section II and Section III scores, and internalizing and externaliz- ing outcomes was nearly identical for both forms of the PID-5. These findings suggest that the DSM-5 AMPD traits can be reliably and validly measured with a re- duced set of PID-5 items without loss of information . Recently, comparing all three forms of the PID-5,  largely replicated these findings for the Danish ver- sion of the PID-5. The Danish PID-5-SF showed satisfac- tory reliability and structural validity as well as a high profile agreement with the original form regarding correla- tions with interviewer-rated DSM-5 Section II PD symptom counts. In addition, all three forms discriminated between psychiatric patients and community-dwelling adults .
The short form of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Personality Inventory DSM-5 (PID-5-BF); is another scale that is used to assess participants. The original version of the questionnaire contains 220 items by four scales which is developed by Krueger , Derringer , Markon , Watso and Skodo  to measure the dimensional model of personalitytraits of DSM-5 . They studied its psychometric properties in the samples of the general population of patients and normal populations and scales from medium to high internal consistency (0.73 to 0.95) with an average of 0.86. Studies on factor structure of inventory have shown that its 25 scale are loaded highly by factors [23, 6]. These Second class factors are negative affect (e.g., Emotional Lability, Anxiousness and Separation Insecurity), detachment (Withdrawal, Anhedonia and Intimacy Avoidance), antagonism (e.g., Manipulativeness, Deceitfulness and Grandiosity), disinhibition (e.g., Irresponsibility, Impulsivity and Distractibility) and psychoticism, (e.g., Unusual Beliefs Experiences, Eccentricity and Perceptual Dysregulation) . Psychometric properties and the factor structure of the short version of the inventory were studied in Iran after adaptation in college students. The results confirmed the fitness of the five-factor structure by a confirmatory factor analysis. Also, the total reliability is 0.86 and internal consistency of factors is reported between 0.76 to 0.89 . Alpha value obtained in this study is 0.73.
FFM-based measures of Axis-II PDs. Widiger and Costa (2013) recently updated and summarized the availa- ble evidence for using a general trait model like the FFM for the description of PDs relying on the assumption that the distinction between general traits and personality pathology reflects more a quantitative than a qualita- tive difference (Simms & Clark, 2006). Samuel and Widiger (2008), for example, recently meta-analyzed the associations between FFM facets and DSM-IV PDs, demonstrating that most PDs could be described in terms of a particular set of FFM facets. Miller and colleagues (2005) corroborated on such findings and proposed an easy-to-use system to describe DSM-IV PDs in terms of aggregates of a specific set of FFM facets per PD. Scoring in a more extreme range on such a FFM PD count (for example 1.5 SD beyond the mean) is considered indicative of a specific PD, requiring further attention. Bastiaansen, Rossi and De Fruyt (2012) examined the concurrent validity of different FFM PD counts in an attempt to optimize this proposed scoring system. The util- ity of these FFM PD counts has been further supported in the meantime for both clinical and professional deve- lopmental diagnostic purposes. Miller and colleagues (2010) demonstrated the utility of this system for clinical decision making, whereas Wille et al. (2013) and De Fruyt et al. (2009, 2013b) investigated the applicability of the counts to screen for aberrant traits observable in the working population to identify dark side personality tendencies that may hinder performance or functioning at work.
change in personalitytraits. The scar posits fundamental and long-lasting changes in personality, whereas the complication model suggests that the traits return to premorbid baseline after an episode of illness. The last two models do not propose a causal relationship between personality and psychopathology. The shared factor model presupposes a shared genetic basis, while the spectrum model proposes underlying continua from normality to mild, moderate and severe psychopathology (for instance, social phobia and avoidant PD or schizotypal PD with schizophrenia). These models overlap and are not mutually exclusive; however, all of them have received some empirical support (Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010).
The DSM–5 Section III traits for BPD were assessed using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5] [24, 25]. The PID-5 is a 220-item self-report inventory measuring the Criterion B (i.e., 25 trait facets and five higher-order trait domains) of the alternative DSM–5 model for PDs. Patients were required to rate each PID-5 item on a 4- point likert-scale from 0 (Very False or Often False) to 3 (Very True or Often True). We used the Danish version of the PID-5, which has demonstrated acceptable psycho- metric properties [26, 27] and continuity with categorical PDs , including specific ability to differentiate BPD from other PDs [29, 30]. In the current study we exclu- sively employed 9 PID-5 trait facets that were designated to describe features of BPD. First, we included the 7 trait facets that are specified for BPD in the official DSM-5 Section III trait-to-disorder cross-walk (i.e., Emotional Lability, Anxiousness, Separation Insecurity, Depressivity,
The current study is aimed to determine the moderating effect of perfectionism on the relationships between personalitytraits with life satisfaction and psychological well-being. Research population was all undergraduate students of Islamic Azad University of Tehran while 140 students were selected through multi-level clustering sampling. Data were collected through psychological well-being questionnaire (RSPWB-18), perfectionism list of Hill, short form questionnaire of personalitytraits of NEO (NEO-FFI) and life satisfaction questionnaire (SWLS) and were analyzed in two sections of descriptive (mean and standard deviation) and inferential (Pearson correlation and stepwise regression). The results showed that personalitytraits and perfectionism has significant statistical relationship P<0.01 and F (11 and 128) = 9.01 with psychological well-being and only the variables of neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were the aspects of personalitytraits and objectively, high standards and perception of pressure were the aspects of perfectionism predictor of psychological well-being. Personalitytraits and perfectionism with life satisfaction have significant statistical relationship P<0.01 and F (11 and 128) = 5.59 and perfectionism is mediator between personalitytraits and life satisfaction or it has moderating effect on this relationship. Only neuroticism, extroversion were the aspects of personalitytraits and interpersonal sensitivity and being excellent were the aspects of predictor perfectionism of life satisfaction and there is significant statistical relationship among life satisfaction with self- acceptance, dominating on environment and total score of psychological well-being and there aren’t any significant relationships among other aspects of psychological well-being.
A second view that has been discussed in the literature involves the extent to which Criterion A and Criterion B might be redundant. Relevant research has typically examined the incremental validity of Criterion A and B personality features with respect to variables such as DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II PD diagnoses, or other clinically relevant outcome variables. Some studies find that personality dysfunction provides incremental validity over maladaptive traits for predicting such outcomes (Hopwood, Thomas, Markon, Wright, & Krueger, 2012; Bastiaansen et al., 2016), whereas other studies do not (Anderson & Sellbom, 2016; Few et al., 2013). Because both the A and B criteria of the AMPD include significant maladaptive content, it may not be surprising that the incremental contribution of each is somewhat limited even when present. However, our perspective seeks to address a different question, one involving potential mechanisms that may differentially account for these maladaptive trait variants. Thus, whereas most previous research on the incremental validity of personality dysfunction and maladaptive traits treats maladaptive traits as an independent variable, we instead seek to understand maladaptive traits as a dependent variable. Specifically, we seek to explore the thesis that maladaptive traits reflect a combination of normal range traits and personality dysfunction, components of
evidence from the current research for a separate Psychoticism factor, distinct from Negative Affectivity/Neuroticism, with the remaining general and maladaptive traits further sub- sumed under an Aggressiveness/Agreeableness, a Detachment/ Positive Affectivity-Extraversion, and a Conscientiousness/ Constraint factor, respectively. The current work illustrates how the FFM and the PSY-5 models converge as overarch- ing models to accommodate general and maladaptive traits. There are also limitations that should be kept in mind when evaluating the present findings. The sample consisted of undergraduates; although not uncommon in structural research, our findings need replication not only in the gen- eral population but also in heterogeneous groups of inpa- tients/outpatients. The DSM-5 trait model is meant to describe traits that are indicative of specific personality dis- order types or, if the patient is not an exact match to one and only one disorder type, the traits delineating the features of the Personality Disorder–Trait Specified diagnosis. The dis- tribution of these traits in undergraduate samples is likely to be different from patient groups, though personality prob- lems are not absent in students, and there are a range of important studies of personality disorders conducted on stu- dent samples (e.g., the Longitudinal Study of Personality Disorders; Lenzenweger, 2006). Moreover, the kind of structural analyses conducted in our study is sensitive to outliers, which may be more prevalent in clinical samples, underscoring the utility of a student sample for a first exploratory description. Nevertheless, the PID-5 was con- structed to assess Criterion B of dysfunctional personality (www.dsm5.org), and it is unlikely that a student sample taps a sufficient amount of dysfunctional personality vari- ance relative to a clinical sample. The present study hence primarily described covariation and structural overlap at the more general level
FFMRF can be a useful brief measure that can identify maladaptive traits important to personality disorder diagnoses, yet further research is needed with multi-method assessment procedures for the FFM. These studies confirm the similarity between the DSM-5 and FFM traits and demonstrate the inclusion of maladaptive personalitytraits in general personality trait models. Other studies that have examined the DSM-5 alternative trait model in relation to the FFM, did not find evidence for anticipated loadings (i.e., PID-5 submissiveness onto FFM agreeableness; Griffin & Samuel, 2014; Thomas et al., 2012). However, it is important to note that these relationships were examined using the NEO PI-R and FFMRF. The NEO PI-R, as mentioned previously, does not measure the maladaptive levels of the traits as well as it does adaptive levels (Haigler & Widiger, 2001).
Outcome variables for multiple linear regressions were wellbeing (WEMWBS score), psychological distress (GHQ-12 score) and depression (BDI-II score). The out- come variable for the logistic regression was presence or absence of previous suicide attempts. Models were built using a manual forward stepwise approach, meaning that variables of interest, based on our research question were entered first, and the model was checked after each step to determine which variables should be retained. The variables age and gender (male [baseline], female) were entered first, followed by student population (veter- inary [baseline], medical, pharmacy, dentistry and law). Age and gender variables were removed if there was no evidence of confounding. Neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience and perfectionism were then entered in turn, in order of univariable significance. Finally, year of study (1st [base- line], 2nd, 3rd, 4th and final), previous degree (yes [base- line], no), and UK [baseline] or non-UK Citizen were examined. Variables were retained in the model if sig- nificantly associated with the dependent variable at the 5% level. Age and gender were tested again at the end of model-building for evidence of confounding. Interaction terms between all final model main effects were exam- ined and subject to a Bonferroni correction with a sig- nificance threshold of 0.005. Data were assessed for multicollinearity by checking that tolerance statistics were < 10 and variance inflation factor was > 0.2.
ing. For example, it is possible that some individuals may have been reluctant to acknowledge their aversive personalitytraits or tendency to employ injurious forms of humor. Future research would benefit from utilizing strategies that are designed to capture pathological personalitytraits and humor styles that are not completely reliant on self-report (e.g., observer ratings). The fourth limitation is that the present study had far more female participants than male participants. Sex was included in the analyses but it failed to emerge as a moderator of the effects. This suggests that sex does not moderate the associations that pathological personalitytraits have with humor styles but it would be helpful if future research attempted to replicate these findings with a sample that had a more even balance of men and women. The fifth limitation is that the pathological personalitytraits used in the present study capture only a limited range of pathological features of personality. For example, the PID-5 pathological trait of antagonism captures extremely low levels of agreeableness but the PID-5 fails to capture extremely high levels of agreeableness (e.g., gullibility, self-effacement) which may have unique connections with humor styles (e.g., self-effacement may be positively associated with the self-defeating humor style). Despite these limitations, the results of the present study expand the current understanding of the connections between the darker aspects of personality and humor by showing the links between pathological personalitytraits and humor styles.
There is now a growing consensus that personality path- ology should be represented dimensionally rather than categorically [5, 7, 8]. While the DSM-IV categorical model was retained in the DSM-5 Section II as the official diagnostic system, a novel approach to the assessment of personality pathology was included in Section III to stimu- late further research and possible inclusion in future DSM iterations . The new system is a hybrid of dimensional and categorical ratings that include personalitytraits as well as diagnoses . An innovative component is the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), which de- fines personality pathology in terms of impairments in self-functioning (Identity and Self-direction) and interper- sonal functioning (Empathy and Intimacy), and can be used to assess both the presence and severity of personal- ity pathology . The four domains are rated individually, and for diagnostic purposes the clinician selects the level of functioning that most closely captures the patient’s overall level of impairment . The LPFS constitutes the first step toward the diagnosis of a personality disorder under Section III . Following the LPFS assessment, the clinician must assess pathological personalitytraits ac- cording to five trait domains: negative affectivity, detach- ment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism.
The boy of the second case example suffers from a narcissistic PD, but this diagnosis alone would not really characterize his broad personality pathology that is already consolidated at the age of 15. An abnormal de- velopment can be seen in four of the five trait domains (negative affectivity, antagonism, detachment and com- pulsivity), and the description on the trait facets clarifies the clinical picture in much more detail. For example, within the domain of “disinhibition vs. compulsivity” the particular pattern of facets, including irresponsibility (e.g. lack of regard for completing homework or follow- ing the rules of the house to not eat in his room), dis- tractibility (i.e. his difficulty in maintaining goal-focused behaviour), and rigid perfectionism (e.g. preoccupation with specific details and order of things) support the diagnosis of narcissism. More importantly, it shows the particular characteristics that comprise how the narcis- sism manifests in this boy and the level of severity. The ratings also permit changes in the pattern and levels to be monitored over the course of treatment.
From the practical point of view, the adaptation to Spanish spoken in Mexico of an instrument that measures the perfectionism in the sport is fundamental, since Dunn and cols. , Dunn, Causgrove Dunn, Gotwals, Vallance, Craft and Syrotiuk , Gotwals and cols.  pointed out that perfectionism is best captured by multidimensional domain-specific measures. In particular, the factorial validity of the Sport-MPS-2, including all subscales, allows the subscales be used simultaneously to help differentiate between healthy/adaptive and unhealthy/maladaptive profiles of perfectionism in sport [16, 17]. Therefore, it will be useful for coaches, sports psychologists, and Spanish-speaking researchers to measure this personality trait, and by means of which they can measure adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism in sport, as suggested Dunn and cols .
While existing nomothetic research suggests that opposite poles of trait spectra, such as compulsivity and disinhibition, are inversely related to one another, this is not always true idiographically (e.g., Villemarette-Pittman, Stanford, Greve, Houston, & Mathias, 2004). When this occurs, it is likely due to different elevations on different facets within the same domain. It would appear nonintuitive that a person could be described as both rigid and spontaneous, but it is theoretically possible that an individual could score highly on both traits if they were assessed separately (in fact, the Millon Index of Personality Styles includes unipolar scales to assess his bipolar traits precisely for this purpose; Millon, Weiss, & Millon, 2004). Research that investigates this possibility is necessary. If such situations were discovered to be common, then clinicians and or researchers might also want to consider intra-individual variability for each trait (Tellegen, 1998).
Personality can be found in nearly every aspect of daily life. The personality characteristics that we perceive in ourselves and notice in others have a powerful influence on important outcomes, including careers, relationships, and general well- being (Krueger & Eaton, 2010; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). This pervasive relevance is one of several arguments supporting recent attempts to integrate dimensions of personality into a comprehensive conceptualization of psychopathology. Over the years, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1952) has steadily given more attention to pathological expressions of personality. However, numerous challenges remain in developing a scientifically and clinically useful system that not only accurately describes the structure and nature of personality disorders, but also brings together perspectives from diverse areas, including basic personality, general psychopathology, and genetics (Krueger & Markon, 2006).
the mediating roles of self-esteem and perfectionism in the relationship between personalitytraits and eating disorders (ED). The sample consisted of 155 women (from 18 to 31 years). Ninety three met the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for some type of ED, 31 women formed the symptomatic group, with high risk of ED, and 31 women, the non-symptomatic group, without known pathology or alteration of eating behaviours. The instruments used were the MCMI-II, EDI-2, EAT-40 and BSQ. Data analysis was conducted using structural equation modelling by means of LISREL 8.71. The estimated model fi t satisfactorily. The results confi rm the relationship between schizoid, paranoid, self-destructive and borderline per- sonality traits with ED, the role of self-esteem as the main mediating variable in the effect exerted by certain personalitytraits in ED, and perfectionism as a mediating variable of the effect of borderline personalitytraits on ED and self-esteem.
Although the original higher order factor structure was replicated, and relations between DAPP-BQ higher order dimensions and PID-5 higher order domains were both in line with theorized expectations as well as revealing impor- tant differences between both models, the use of more com- prehensive criterion variables in future research might help us further advance our conceptual understanding of (patho- logical) personality. Given the recent work on the hierarchi- cal relationship between one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-factor conceptualizations of personality structure (Morey et al., 2013; Wright & Simms, 2014; Wright et al., 2012), this approach would be specifically interesting in relation to the clinical merits of a fifth higher order domain Psychoticism, that is, above and beyond clinical variance explained by pathological four-factor models like the one the DAPP-BQ (as a measure of it) stands for. More elabo- rate analyses within a clinical sample on primary facet scale level will be especially helpful to further clarify the one ver- sus multidimensional nature of the higher order domain Psychoticism and disentangle its relationship not only with the Big-Five dimension Openness (see Chmielewski, Bagby, Markon, Ring, & Ryder, 2014; De Fruyt et al., 2013; Piedmont, Sherman, & Sherman, 2012; but also Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse, & Born, 2012; Gore & Widiger, 2013), but with psychosis as a clinical syndrome (Tackett et al., 2008) and at-risk-mental-states (e.g., McGorry et al., 2009) as well.