BPDFamily.com

REVISED May 2013 - The DSM-5, which came out in 2013, was anticipated to bring a number of changes to the definition of the personality disorders.  The working group did away with the complex multiaxial diagnostic approach and attempted to make the personality disorders more discrete (less overlap) - basically consolidated Axes I, II, III will be  to one -- reducing the 10 personality disorders to 6 -- with each PD will be "scored" on a rating system based on severity.

The proposed DSM 5 criteria was simpler than the DSM-IV - it looked something like this (note: no 5/9 criteria).  In the last days before the final draft, the APA over ruled the DSM committee and relegated this classification scheme to the appendix and encouraged researcher to evaluate it further in the coming years.  In the interim, the DSM -IV criteria was repeated without change.

Proposed DSM 5 criteria:

1 Impairments  The must be impairments in self functioning AND impairments in interpersonal functioning (more on this later)

2 Negative Affectivity, characterized by:

• Emotional lability: Unstable emotional experiences and frequent mood changes; emotions that are easily aroused, intense, and/or out of proportion to events and circumstances.

• Anxiousness: Intense feelings of nervousness, tenseness, or panic, often in reaction to interpersonal stresses; worry about the negative effects of past unpleasant experiences and future negative possibilities; feeling fearful, apprehensive, or threatened by uncertainty; fears of falling apart or losing control.

• Separation insecurity: Fears of rejection by – and/or separation from – significant others, associated with fears of excessive dependency and complete loss of autonomy.

• Depressivity: Frequent feelings of being down, miserable, and/or hopeless; difficulty recovering from such moods; pessimism about the future; pervasive shame; feeling of inferior self-worth; thoughts of suicide and suicidal behavior.

3 Disinhibition, characterized by:

• Impulsivity: Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing or following plans; a sense of urgency and self-harming behavior under emotional distress.

• Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self-damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard to consequences; lack of concern for one’s limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger.

4 Hostility:  Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults.

We’re all so used to the 9 traits of borderline personality disorder as defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s current DSM-IV-TR that it’s hard to imagine it changing—even though the DSM-IV-TR is controversial and plagued with problems. Yet we know it will because for many years the APA has been working not only for a new description of BPD but the entire DSM: the DSM-5 will be out in 2013.  Now, we finally have a look at what they’re proposing.  

Maybe the greatest change for non-professionals like ourselves, is the first criteria -  the APA is attempting to clearly define the line between personality disorder and personality style.

Here is a more detailed look at #1 criteria.


In the DSM 5, the essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose borderline personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:

Self (impairment in at least 1):

Identity: Experience of oneself as unique, with clear boundaries between self and others; stability of self-esteem and accuracy of self-appraisal; capacity for, and ability to regulate, a range of emotional experience.  To be rated from healthy functioning (Level = 0) to extreme impairment (Level = 4).

Self-direction: Pursuit of coherent and meaningful short-term and life goals; utilization of constructive and prosocial internal standards of behavior; ability to self-reflect productively.   To be rated from healthy functioning (Level = 0) to extreme impairment (Level = 4).

Interpersonal (impairment in at least 1):

Empathy*: Comprehension and appreciation of others’ experiences and motivations; tolerance of differing perspectives; understanding of the effects of own behavior on others.    To be rated from healthy functioning (Level = 0) to extreme impairment (Level = 4).

Intimacy*: Depth and duration of positive connections with others; desire and capacity for closeness; mutuality of regard reflected in interpersonal behavior.   To be rated from healthy functioning (Level = 0) to extreme impairment (Level = 4).

---

Below is the scale for "empathy".  There are four scales in total (identity, self direction, empathy, intimacy).  To me, it is facinating to see "empathy" defined in such clear terms.

Healthy (0) Capable of accurately understanding others’ experiences and motivations in most situations. Comprehends and appreciates others’ perspectives, even if disagreeing.  Is aware of the effect of own actions on others.

Mild impairment (1) Somewhat compromised in ability to appreciate and understand others’ experiences; may tend to see others as having unreasonable expectations or a wish for control. Although capable of considering and understanding different perspectives, resists doing so. Inconsistent is awareness of effect of own behavior on others.

Impaired (2) Hyper-attuned to the experience of others, but only with respect to perceived relevance to self. Excessively self-referential; significantly compromised ability to appreciate and understand others’ experiences and to consider alternative perspectives. Generally unaware of or unconcerned about effect of own behavior on others, or unrealistic appraisal of own effect.

Very Impaired (3) Ability to consider and understand the thoughts, feelings and behavior of other people is significantly limited; may discern very specific aspects of others’ experience, particularly vulnerabilities and suffering.  Generally unable to consider alternative perspectives; highly threatened by differences of opinion or alternative viewpoints. Confusion or unawareness of impact of own actions on others; often bewildered about peoples’ thoughts and actions, with destructive motivations frequently misattributed to others.

Extreme Impairment (4)  Pronounced inability to consider and understand others’ experience and motivation. Attention to others' perspectives virtually absent (attention is hypervigilant, focused on need-fulfillment and harm avoidance).  Social interactions can be confusing and disorienting.

---

Here is the scale for intimacy.  There are four scales in total

Healthy (0) -Maintains multiple satisfying and enduring relationships in personal and community life. Desires and engages in a number of caring, close and reciprocal relationships. Strives for cooperation and mutual benefit and flexibly responds to a range of others’ ideas, emotions and behaviors.

Mild impairment (1) -Able to establish enduring relationships in personal and community life, with some limitations on degree of depth and satisfaction.Capacity and desire to form intimate and reciprocal relationships, but may be inhibited in meaningful expression and sometimes constrained if intense emotions or conflicts arise. Cooperation may be inhibited by unrealistic standards; somewhat limited in ability to respect or respond to others’ ideas, emotions and behaviors.

Impaired (2) Capacity and desire to form relationships in personal and community life, but connections may be largely superficial. Intimate relationships are largely based on meeting self-regulatory and self-esteem needs, with an unrealistic expectation of being perfectly understood by others. Tends not to view relationships in reciprocal terms, and cooperates predominantly for personal gain.

Very Impaired (3) Some desire to form relationships in community and personal life is present, but capacity for positive and enduring connection is significantly impaired. Relationships are based on a strong belief in the absolute need for the intimate other(s), and/or expectations of abandonment or abuse.  Feelings about intimate involvement with others alternate between fear/rejection and desperate desire for connection. Little mutuality: others are conceptualized primarily in terms of how they affect the self (negatively or positively); cooperative efforts are often disrupted due to the perception of slights from others.

Extreme Impairment (4)  :)esire for affiliation is limited because of profound disinterest or expectation of harm.  Engagement with others is detached, disorganized or consistently negative. Relationships are conceptualized almost exclusively in terms of their ability to provide comfort or inflict pain and suffering. Social/interpersonal behavior is not reciprocal; rather, it seeks fulfillment of basic needs or escape from pain.

---

The remaining scales are listed here:  dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions.aspx?rid=468 (http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=468)

My late father showed a lot of empathy when we were kids to us and to others. As did the two BPDs I was and were involved with. But as the illness progressed it got worse and my sister described my father as sociopath. My warm and giving ex gf became extremely demanding. My wife focused on coping and raged. One characteristic of BPD (as currently understood) is high sensitivity and this sensitivity in combination with lack of emotional regulation is the breeding ground for trouble. Often BPDs are found in caring jobs.

So the lack of empathy in diagnostic criteria may be a good characteristic of later severe clinical cases but misleading or wrong in sub-clinical and earlier phases.

This illness is a chameleon. Any static system describing the color is flawed.

You may know that borderline personality disorder is currently known as an “axis ll” disorder, a “permanent state” disorder and not a “temporary trait” disorder.Randi

So, now there is a formula for rating impairment.  I find this proposal quite interesting.  It tackles the subjective nature of trying to diagnose these personality disorders, and the difficulty of even defining what the traits are.

Sometimes, I think we get too hung up on having a diagnosis.  We want it either because we hope for a cure for our pwBPD, or to give ourselves permission to give up.  

GCD145

I have just one simple comment and one simple question:

The comment is, I really wish they would change the name!  It's so misleading and confusing - one more barrier to acceptance by the sufferer.

The question is - and forgive me if this was explained already but I want to make sure I understand - by this system, would it be more likely that treatment would be covered by insurance?

Thanks!

Matt

A name change got lobbied pretty hard by the patient community.

My guess is that they didn't want to lose the connection to the recently completed large studies (and studies in process), the advocacy work done with Congress in declaring BPD awareness month, and the gains made with the insurance industry.  In fact, it seems that they are trying to leverage these gains to help with the other PDs that were previously classified separately.

It may have been just a very practical decision.

The people who I talk to assume there will be lots of professional education to help people with whatever system they come up with. There has to be. Probably various books and seminars and such. I'm not surprised the name wasn't changed. I didn't like the alternatives because they focused on emotion and made it seem like a mood disorder, and we all know it's more complex than that! Randi

Summing it up... .

Good comments, all.  :)

In summing up what we have learned so far, here is how the pieces fit together.  To be BPD all three must be true.  Anything less is not BPD per se' but rather "BPD leanings, or BPD style, or subclinical BPD, or "high functioning BPD".

(1) A rating of mild impairment or greater on the Levels of Personality Functioning  (https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=114843.msg1106411#msg1106411)

(2) A “good match” or “very good match” to a Personality Disorder Type (see BPD type (https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=114843.msg1106411#msg1106411))  

(3) Relative stability (https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=114843.msg1107938#msg1107938) of (1) and (2) across time and situations, and excludes culturally normative personality features and those due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition.

I think there will be a lot of failings in the revised criteria until the psychiatrists start listening to the families of the BPD. Until they do this, they simply won't get the real picture of what's happening with the BPD. All they are seeing is what presents in their office, or what presents for the studies.

I learned more about the illness from other adult children of a BPD when I found this place around five or six years ago. What shocked me was that one of us would open up a topic about something we thought could never have happened to another human being, and suddenly there would be an outpouring of 'Oh My God!  My BPD mother/father did exactly the same thing.'

It frustrates me that there's no mention of what goes wrong when they have children. The change - and by change I mean deterioration - in my uBPDsister's behaviour after she had children - was something to behold.

I know they're trying, but they've got a long way to go to understand this illness.  They won't get it until they listen to the families.   Too much happens behind closed doors that the BPD's therapists would never DREAM was going on.

These are interesting thoughts, SaNPDiper.

Most diseases don't have victims!  Doctors focus on helping their patients, and medical researchers often have that focus too;  you don't examine a family member to figure out what's wrong with someone's leg, or lungs.  You examine the patient.  But for BPD a reasearcher would have to be part doctor and part sociologist - not psychologist - because to understand it fully you have to look at the interactions between family members (or others close to the BPD sufferer), and I think that may be outside the scope of most medical researchers.

That's interesting. I think there are some parallels here with conditions such as schizophrenia (which my Dad has; my mother is uNPD/BPD) where the patient's family can be left in a situation where they are living with a person whose symptoms are too severe for them to cope with. There were phases where my Dad was unable to be an effective parent (although he  never harmed us) and could not be left alone with us as children.

I think there are child protection implications when a parent has any kind of severe mental health condition. I hope the new DSM document recognises that when an adult is diagnosed with a PD, there is a significant risk that their children will be abused and/or neglected. Especially because so many adults with PDs seem to have a sadistic streak.

Annie xoxo

Just a small point   :)

The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association.

It provides definitions, symptoms and characteristics for mental disorders that are recognized by clinicians from around the world.  

It's simply a classification system.  The equivalent of "a heart attack is defined as" or "stroke is defined as".  This is really important for research, for example, so that a study of people with BiPolar I disorder at Harvard is looking at the same type of patients that a study of of BiPolar I at UCLA is.  This way the findings can be compared by clinicians and used by future researchers to design more advanced analysis.

The DSM does not discuss diagnostic methods per se', there is no discussion, for example, about the use of the SCIDII questionairre.  The DSM does not discuss treatment, social implications, the impact on families, etc.  All very important things - just not the charter of the DSM.

In this next addition, it appears that they want to simplify things - that maybe the 10 Axis II categories were too hard to work on a practical level - or there was too much overlap - and that appears to be what they have done.

The DSM-IV uses, if I remember right, nine criteria for BPD.  It's these criteria that are being discussed here, I think... .

That is, the DSM defines disorders according to observable behaviors;  but the current criteria include some that aren't directly observable, but depend on the patients description of his or her feelings, state of mind, etc.  Maybe that's impossible to avoid in this field.

What I think is being suggested here - and I agree with it, I think - is that, as a scientist, the psychologist has access to other information, which may be as reliable, or more so, than the patient's description of his or her behavior and what's going on in their head.  In another scientific field, the scientist would look at any reliable information available to understand the phenomenon.  Because this is a medical field, and there is a strong tradition - and maybe considerations of "ethics" - in the way of the doctor talking openly with family members and others whose inputs might be meaningful - that make it tough for doctors to get it right.

Clinical Practices: There is nothing in the DSM that discusses how the information is to be gathered.   There is nothing in the DSM that precludes asking family member, co-workers, or friends.  And depending on the situation and the clinician this is often done.  Family therapy is not uncommon.  Nor are parent meetings with their child's clinician uncommon.  

Research Studies: Most research studies rely on patient surveys to determine the disorder. This is a significant aspect what psychology research - building of reliable diagnostic questionairres.  The questionairres themselves are tested against populations that have been diagnosed by in detail psychoanalysis to determine there accuracy.  Eventually, they find the right questions that can accurately reproduce what an detailed patient analysis can do (more or less).

This is why it is called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.  

Hope this helps  :)

There's nothing in the DSM preventing doctors from gathering information in a variety of ways.  My (minimal) observation suggests that there are traditions and role-definitions that can interfere with it though.  (So that's outside the scope of the DSM discussion per se, but related because the DSM definitions are in terms of behaviors which aren't entirely observable from testing or talking with the patient alone.)

Example:  The therapist views her role as helping the patient.  A diagnosis of BPD may not be in the patient's interest, because the patient is likely to reject the diagnosis and cease therapy.  So the therapist avoids objective testing and looks for ways to help the patient without fully understanding the disorder.  Meantime, family members are hurt by the patient's behavior, but have nothing solid to use to change the family situation - no diagnosis or clear input from the therapist.  By defining her role as "helping the patient" not "helping the kids" or "helping the family", the scientist comes to a different, or a more vague, conclusion and takes actions which may be less effective.  (This is a real example, by the way, not made up.)

I'm not condemning the DSM or saying it should be different - I really don't know - only building on some of the comments here that somehow the way BPD is diagnosed just simply doesn't always work in the real world.

Great points raised by all-

I was told recently by a psycho analyst that they were considering changing the name from borderline to "emotional affect regulatory disorder" It's a mouthful but it is certainly more descriptive than "Borderline". I find it frightening that they are telling doctoral candidates( at least a few here in California ) to not code anyone as Axis II not only because of the potential stigma but because insurance won't pay for treatment. This throws the whole data collection  process and resulting statistics ( you know, 2-4% borderlines.3-5 % narcisssists,etc... )out the window. Without proper stats,we will never know the true scope of the problem. As many of you probably know or suspect , there are a lot more Axis II sufferers amongst us than the literature would have us believe and... .no... I'm not paranoid  :)       

The latest trend in BPD treatment is to involve the family more and more.  The NEA-BPD Family Connections program is all about treating the BPD family and the BPD environment.

Strangely, I have heard no wails from the typical people about the fact the name wasn't changed. I think people were too happy and the axis l and ll merger and the new stats.But I disagree with the popular new name propositions that stress emotional dysregulation.  It would make it even harder for average folks to understand the difference between bipolar and BPD and that comes up in so many interviews I do. If we picked just one BPD trait it could just as well be identity disorder or fear of abandonment disorder.The latest figures that raised the percentage of BPs from 2% to 5.9% were done by looking at large scale surveys, not hospital data. But the figures about BPD as a percentage of outpatients and inpatients ARE affected. Once wonders.Randi KregerAuthor, "The Essential Family Guide to Borderline Personality Disorder "

The current statistics do not come from physician diagnosis', which would not be accurate - bt rater from general population epidemiological studies.


:) We've also been using 5.9% since the publication of:

Prevalence, Correlates, Disability, and Comorbidity of DSM-IV Borderline Personality Disorder: Results from the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions

Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 69:4, April 2008.

Link to article (https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=63511.msg784927#msg784927)

This is what I don't understand about a study like this.

If they interviewed my ex, I think she would say nothing's wrong - I don't have bad feelings or behavior.  That's what she did with the MMPI-2, but it caught her.

A study like this - if I understand correctly - has no way to assess her actual behavior.  So how can it accurately determine whether she has a problem and what it is?

You are looking at this based on diagnosing your wife.  A study of 30,000 is about getting a reliable percentage in the population - not reliably diagnosing every participant - it can have some error (some of which will be canceling error or excluded outliers) and still be reliable.

An experienced study designer will use a design and questions which have established reproducibility.

For example, you can ask a series of questions to known pwBPD and to known pw BiPo and you will soon see that some questions are predictable to each (not a 100%, but highly predictable nonetheless).  If you then ask those questions to a large study group, you can make fairly reliable determinations.

Remember, even SCID or a more detailed clinical evaluation is just questions... .

And in the UK it is absolutely dreadful and getting worse. Makes not a blind bit of difference what the DSM says or whether it changes any of its definitions. This topic is really interesting but if you live here, pretty academic from a practical point of view.

Annie

I appreciate you sharing that.

The naivete with which these political changes are often discussed is staggering ... .people just sort of assume that "reform" means "oh good, whatever I think is wrong today will get fixed" when it could mean it gets worse.


Our members who live under fully governmentalized health systems do not generally report better mental health coverage, to put it mildly.

I am having hard time understanding the new designations (etc) and I am a bit of a slow learner as well, but I was wondering, is there any way the changes could effect funding for people who need help? Is there a chance that this is change can be used to cut back funding or coverage to others who suffer from not just BPD but other disorders?

Is this a good thing or a bad thing regarding the changes. Is this like a con man who uses misdirection. Yes we may think it is a good thing but latter find out otherwise.

I guess I have always been a sceptic when ever these things happen. I remember when they said regulating the electrical industry would reduce costs, my first reaction was laughter, add in a middle man and the costs go down... .the laughter lasted until the power bills arrived... .

Could the changes effect the amount of money be put aside for research?

I have limited experience as being part of a union executive (lower position thank goodness) and was always shocked how we would go over management changes reguested at bargining, try and look at all future impacts and fail to miss at how management used those changes in the future, it was really quite scary.

Yeah I'm inclined to think the same way. What's in it for the drug companies when disorders get re-classified? What's in it for medical practitioners and therapists? What about medical textbooks and self-help books, I guess they make money out of publishing a whole new edition with updated diagnostic criteria.

Am I correct in interpreting that the changes are leaning in the general direction towards BPD being viewed as a spectrum disorder? If so, that's interesting because my experience is that these individuals slide up and down the scale constantly, and assume aspects of other personality disorders as and when it suits them. How do you even begin to diagnose someone who constantly varies in severity and type of symptoms?

My own feeling is that they should be graded according to their level of toxicity   A bit like radioactive material.

Sorry, just thinking aloud. Hope I'm not being inappropriate or OT

Annie

They are suggesting that there is a spectrum of severity of the traits and defining, at some level, what is severe enogh to be a clinical disorder vs "borderline leanings","style", etc.

In its current iteration, ratings from three assessments combine to comprise the essential criteria for a personality disorder:

(1)  A rating of mild impairment or greater on the Levels of Personality Functioning  (https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=114843.msg1106411#msg1106411)

(2)  A rating of

• a “good match” or “very good match” to a Personality Disorder Type (see BPD type (https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=114843.msg1106411#msg1106411)) 

    - or -

• “quite a bit” or “extremely” descriptive on one or more of six Personality Trait Domains

(3)  Relative stability of (1) and (2) across time and situations, and excludes culturally normative personality features and those due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition.

1, No effect for drug companies. No drugs have ever even been tested on people with PDs. All drugs are given off-label.2. With fewer PDs and the addition of a way to "measure" the traits, it should be easier for practitioners to diagnose.3. An update for the DSM is LONG overdue. These days everything is going e-book.

Randi, IF there were drugs available for PD's right now, would this change benefit them? It sounds like there is a lot of research going on, they are tieing the PD's to the brain not functioning correctly, so if they come up with a drug in the future, does this change benefit the drug companies? Or is there a potential benefit?

I would gladly make some drug company very rich if they came up with an effective drug treatment for BPD. They would deserve to be rich.

This is the current list of 6.  

Antisocial/Psychopathic Type

Avoidant Type

Borderline Type

Narcissistic Type

Obsessive-Compulsive Type

Schizotypal Type

Severe PD types, such as schizotypal and borderline, have been found to have significantly more impairment at work, in social relationships, and at leisure than patients with less severe types, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, or with major depressive disorder in the absence of personality disorder.

And they plan to define all of these using constellations of these 6 criteria:

• Negative Emotionality: Experiences a wide range of negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, depression, guilt/ shame, worry, etc.), and the behavioral and interpersonal manifestations of those experiences
  
  Trait facets:  Emotional lability, anxiousness, submissiveness, separation insecurity, pessimism, low self-esteem, guilt/ shame, self-harm, depressivity, suspiciousness

• Introversion: Withdrawal from other people, ranging from intimate relationships to the world at large; restricted affective experience and expression; limited hedonic capacity
  
  Trait facets:  Social withdrawal, social detachment, restricted affectivity, anhedonia, intimacy avoidance

• Antagonism: Exhibits diverse manifestations of antipathy toward others, and a correspondingly exaggerated sense of self-importance
  
  Trait facets:  Callousness, manipulativeness, narcissism, histrionism, hostility, aggression, oppositionality, deceitfulness

• Disinhibition: Diverse manifestations of being present- (vs. future- or past-) oriented, so that behavior is driven by current internal and external stimuli, rather than by past learning and consideration of future consequences
  
  Trait facets:  Impulsivity, distractibility, recklessness, irresponsibility

• Compulsivity: The tendency to think and act according to a narrowly defined and unchanging ideal, and the expectation that this ideal  should be adhered to by everyone
  
  Trait facets:  Perfectionism, perseveration, rigidity, orderliness, risk aversion

• Schizotypy: Exhibits a range of odd or unusual behaviors and cognitions, including both process (e.g., perception) and content (e.g., beliefs)
  
  Trait facets:  Unusual perceptions, unusual beliefs, eccentricity, cognitive dysregulation, dissociation proneness

The other PDs will be in a general category - Paranoid Personality Disorder, Schizoid Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Dependent Personality Disorder

I'm new to this thread, but finding it interesting. Thoughts like that above though, do concern me. Like UKannie, my father has schizophrenia; my husband has BPD. I would hate to see this raised as a child protection issue though; it undermines nons and would put an immense stress and pressure on families that are already trying to do their best to avoid stress and pressure. Of course growing up with a mentally ill parent is different to having two 'normal' parents, but that doesn't warrant interference from social services where there is no indication of abuse other than the 'possibility' presented by a mental illness; it feels like a slippery slope.

The underlying research on this work can be found here:

Research led by Michigan State University psychologist Christopher Hopwood proposes a new way to classify personality disorders.

EAST LANSING, Mich. — Research led by a Michigan State University psychologist is playing a key role in the effort to change the way mental health clinicians classify personality disorders. The study by Christopher Hopwood and colleagues calls for a more scientific and practical method of categorizing personality disorders – a proposal that ultimately could improve treatment, Hopwood said.  Hopwood and colleagues propose a new three-stage strategy for diagnosing personality disorders:

• Stage One: Consider a patient's normal personality traits, such as introversion/extroversion. "If a person is depressed and I'm a clinician, it might make a difference if I think they're extroverted depressive rather than introverted depressive," Hopwood said. "It may dictate the type of recommendations I make for them." These normal personality traits also may indicate patient strengths that could help in overcoming psychiatric difficulties; such strengths are not assessed in the current DSM.

• Stage Two: Create a numerical score to represent severity of the disorder. "We're arguing that one single score can represent that severity, so clinicians can easily communicate with one another about how severe a patient is," Hopwood said. "That may indicate decisions such as whether this person should be hospitalized or treated with outpatient care."

• Stage Three: Condense the list of 10 personality disorder categories to five dimensional ratings. Under this proposal, clinicians would diagnose how many symptoms of each disorder a patient has, rather than whether they have one or more of 10 disorders as in the current system. Hopwood said this is more reliable, valid and specific than the current system. He added that research has not sufficiently supported the validity of several current personality disorders. The proposed dimensional ratings are:
  
  Peculiarity. The defining characteristic here is oddness in thought or behavior. This dimension includes the diagnoses of paranoid, schizotypal and schizoid.
  
  Withdrawal. This includes avoidant personalities. "This may have to do with not wanting to leave the house," Hopwood said.
  
  Fearfulness. This combines disorders with opposite extremes of harm avoidance, such as antisocial (which involves fearlessness) and dependant or avoidant (which involves fearfulness).
  
  Unstable. This is similar to the diagnosis of borderline in DSM-IV. The defining characteristic is instability, such as with relationships, identity or emotional experience.
  
  Deliberate. This includes obsessive-compulsive disorder and other disorders defined by overly methodical behavior. "It's having a rigid sense of how life should happen – how I should behave and how other people should behave," Hopwood said.

"We're proposing a different way of thinking about personality and personality disorders," said Hopwood, MSU assistant professor of psychology and an experienced clinician. "There's widespread agreement among personality disorder researchers that the current way to conceptualize personality disorders is not working."

The study is being cited by the team of experts that currently is developing criteria for the manual used to diagnose personality disorders – the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-5, slated to come out in 2013.

The study is being considered for inclusion in the DSM-5. The DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is considered the bible of the U.S. mental health industry and is used by insurance companies as the basis for treatment approval and payment. The study also will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Personality Disorders.

The current method of classifying personality disorders, as spelled out in the fourth edition of the DSM, or DSM-IV, breaks personality disorders into 10 categories, Hopwood said. That system is flawed, he said, because it does not take into account severity of personality disorders in an efficient manner and often leads to overlapping diagnoses.

"It's just not true that there are 10 types of personalities disorders, and that they're all categorical – that you either have this personality disorder or you don't," Hopwood said. "Scientifically, it's just not true."

Ultimately, Hopwood said, the proposal could improve both the system for diagnosing personality disorders as well as the outcome. "Presumably, if this leads to better clinical efficiency it could lead to better clinical care, and that's in everybody's interest," he said.



Co-authors of the proposal include Andrew Skodol of the Sunbelt Collaborative, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia Medical School, and Leslie Morey of Texas A&M University.

Skodol is chairperson and Morey is a member of the committee that will determine the criteria for diagnosing personality disorders in the upcoming DSM.[/size]

"Stage One: Consider a patient's normal personality traits, such as introversion/extroversion. "If a person is depressed and I'm a clinician, it might make a difference if I think they're extroverted depressive rather than introverted depressive," Hopwood said. "It may dictate the type of recommendations I make for them." These normal personality traits also may indicate patient strengths that could help in overcoming psychiatric difficulties; such strengths are not assessed in the current DSM."

I  absolutely agree with this, personality definitely needs to be taken into consideration. We, as individuals, have different priorities, strengths and weaknesses that are innate and unique to our personality types. It is just not logical to treat an extrovert with depression the same way you treat an introvert with depression - their triggers and responses are usually opposite.

Stage two makes sense as well, but stage three is confusing... .

DSM-5 Field Trials Begin: Proposed Diagnostic Criteria Put to the Test

October 19, 2010 — The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has announced that standardized field trials have now started in preparation for the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

The trials were created to assess the practical use of proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria in real-world clinical settings before the manual is published in 2013.

Dr. David Kupfer

"The process for developing DSM-5 continues to be deliberative, thoughtful, and inclusive," said Darrel Regier, MD, MPH, vice chair of the DSM-5 Task Force and APA research director, in a release.

"Large-scale field trials are the next critical phase in this important process and will give us the information we need to ensure the diagnostic criteria are both useful and accurate," he added.

More than 8000 comments by clinicians, researchers, and advocates submitted on the DSM-5 Website regarding the draft criteria were reviewed by the DSM-5 Work Groups. The new field trials will reflect criteria adjustments based on these comments — and will have 2 separate study designs, depending on type of clinical setting.

Although all field trial clinicians will assess new and existing patients at different stages of treatment using the proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria and measures, academic and other large clinical settings will use one design, whereas individual practitioners and smaller clinical practices will follow the other.

"It is important that the proposed criteria are subjected to rigorous and empirically sound field trials," David Kupfer, MD, chair of the DSM-5 Task Force, said in the same release. "The 2 field trial designs will allow us to better understand how the proposed revisions affect clinicians' practices and, most importantly, patient care."

11 Large Centers

Of approximately 60 academic or large centers that responded to the APA's call for proposal, 11 pediatric and adult sites were selected. These include the following:

   * Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts;

   * Child Psychiatry Division, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute in New York City;

   * Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California;

   * The Children's Hospital in Aurora, Colorado;

   * Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada;

   * Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Texas;

   * DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Menniger Clinic, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas;

   * Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota;

   * University of California, Los Angeles;

   * University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; and

   * University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio

Field trial patient evaluations in these settings will start with a baseline assessment by a clinician followed by a second assessment 4 hours to 2 weeks later by a different clinicianto test the reliability of the proposed diagnostic criteria. At 4- to 12-week follow-up, the assessment will be repeated.

Clinicians in these larger settings will also be allowed to conduct videotaped evaluations for a small subset of patients.

In an article published in the October 15 issue of Psychiatric News, Dr. Kupfer writes that it is important that draft criteria are examined in sizable, diverse populations.

"These large settings provide an ideal backdrop for recruiting high volumes of psychiatric patients who represent a wide array of characteristics, including various ages, cultures and ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and potential diagnoses," he adds.

It is estimated that 2500 to 3000 patients will be recruited to participate in this setting.

Smaller Settings

A total of 3900 mental health professionals, including 1400 psychiatrists from a randomly selected sample of those registered with the American Medical Association Masterfile and 2500 volunteer clinicians (including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and nurses), will participate in the field trials scheduled to be conducted in smaller, routine clinical settings.

Recruitment for these smaller settings will continue through October and November. Those selected will need to complete Web-based training before participating and will then recruit and evaluate 2 patients each.

"Having practitioners, such as solo clinicians and those in independent group practices, test proposed revisions is important for examining DSM-5 in the context of its everyday use," writes Dr. Kupfer.

The main difference between the 2 study designs is that the routine clinical settings will use just 2 evaluation visits for patients compared with 3 for the larger institutions.

"Although the use of 2 field-trial designs increases the complexity of this project, the tradeoff is a more precise understanding of how the future of psychiatric diagnosis might impact patients and clinicians," Dr. Kupfer adds.

Evaluation Measures

The DSM-5 Task Force reports that results from all field trials will address several important measures regarding the diagnostic criteria, including the following:

   * Feasibility: are the proposed criteria easy for clinicians to understand and use?

   * Clinical utility: do they help in describing psychiatric problems and in making treatment plan decisions?

   * Validity: how accurate are they in reflecting the mental disorders they are designed to describe? and

   * Reliability: are the same conclusions reached when the criteria are used by different doctors?

Severity measures, through the use of questionnaires and other tools to help assess patient symptom severity on a rating scale, will also be examined during the field trials, as will "cross-cutting dimensional measures." These are tools for "assessing symptoms that occur across a wide range of diagnoses, such as anxiety or sleep problems."

This first phase of field trials is scheduled to run through the end of March 2011, after which the results will be presented in scientific meeting presentations and in articles in scientific journals and DSM-5 source books.

After these initial field trials, another period of public comments through the DSM-5 Website, and more draft criteria adjustments by the Work Groups, a second set of field trials is scheduled to take place later in 2011 and in 2012.

Stage 3 sounds interesting... .  It seems to be focusing on the behaviors instead of a label.  When looking at some of the PDs I think my ex has, there are many overlaps and that made it difficult for me to decided exactly which PD best fits him. 

If I could just throw my layman's 2 cents in here. 

It seems to me that the biggest problem we have today is that psychiatrists and psychotherapists are unable, and/or unwilling to make a diagnosis of BPD today, in part because 1) it is extremely difficult to make such a diagnosis with the current DSM criteria, and 2) because of the stigma attached with the term "Borderline Personality Disorder."

The new criteria listed in the OP seem to be even more confusing and tend to leave out what I have come to understand as some of the defining and distinctive behavior patterns, such as splitting, mirroring, projection, tendency to abuse those in close relationships, etc.  What is desperately needed by both BPD's and their loved ones, is EASIER diagnosis, not more complex.

My concern is that no only is the name not changing, but it is now going to be even HARDER to diagnose, which is going to lead to a lot more people coming on her with undiagnosed loved ones than there already is.  It has been noted that there are more people with BPD than bipolar and schizophrenia combined, yet psychiatrists seem to diagnose Bipolar like they are giving out candy while ignoring BPD for the most part.  And because recovery rates have been reported as fairly good with techniques like DBT, I think it is critical that the psychiatric community both make an effort to remove the stigma associated with the word borderline AND make diagnosis simpler and NOT more complex. 

Mistakes are inevitable, but my feeling is that it is much better to err on the side of the disease that afflicts more people.  It might be better to misdiagnose someone with BPD who might have bipolar or NPD for example, because the treatment of DBT can be beneficial to all of these illnesses, whereas the medication treatments are generally much less effective on personality disroders.  Generally, there is much greater risk (side effects, suicide, depression, etc) associated with mistakenly giving someone heavy doses of various anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, and so forth than mistakenly giving them therapy.

Have to say I think I agree with RowJimmy, that more pwPDs are likely to slip through the diagnostic net with this.

I think my (appearance of) high-functioning uNPD father would be hard to diagnose under the current criteria and there is no way he would score sufficiently highly using the new diagnostic criteria. Yet just from description of his behaviour and listening to a letter from him that I read aloud, my T was able to say, 'I think your father has NPD'. (I'd already worked that out through internet diagnosis!)

My point is that with the new criteria I think that both families and patients are possibily disadvantaged - patients because there are more who will not 'fit the criteria' sufficiently for diagnosis and families because their pwPD is 'missed'. I've seen this happen in the education system when they change criteria and it's almost always related to funding - they want to cut funding for support, so the criteria are made more general or changed so that fewer can be identified as needing the funding/support. Result: less treatment, not more.

Nothing we can do about it, of course, but I am seriously concerned.

I think the bias is for Bipolar over BPD because bipolar is so responsive to medication. If in doubt, most clinicians would treat for bipolar and look for short term improvement before pursuing BPD.  This make more sense to me than trying a two year course of DBT (with a reasonably high drop out rate) first.

Wow, yes, interesting revisions.  What's interesting is that I can see some of this stuff in me!  

What is really helpful is the empathy thing.  Looking at him.  And looking at me.

Just following on from my posts above about the "a or b" thing under "Impairments in interpersonal functioning" ("a" being to do with empathy and "b" being to do with intimacy), when it comes to the "a or b" under "Impairments in self functioning" here, "a" being to do with identity and "b" being to do with self-direction, I would say my H fits both of these, but with the identity issues fitting in a particularly strong way.

I like this batch of criteria.  It's a lot simpler to explain, and the scales can help you tease out differences easier.  After all the controversy with the DSM 5, I like.

The new view seems much more straightforward with its clear definitions of each component. I will be interested to learn of the results of the clinical trials. It reconfirms for me the severity of my DD25's classification. It helps me understand her resistance to therapy - except that the prozac does help moderate her rage episods and panic attacks. I look forward to seeing more about this as the release date approaches.

Just think of all the books out there that will need new editions!

qcr

I think I may have misunderstood this, I initially thought it was to do with their level of intelligence but now think it is to do with how well they cope with everyday life.

Would welcome any further explanation please... .

A high functioning pwBPD is generally successful in life outside of intimate relationships.  They can be smart, witty, attractive, accomplished, talented, high wager earners, etc.  They hide their dysfunction and dysregulation from all except those with whom they share close emotional relationships.

A very destructive characteristic of a relationship with a high functioning pwBPD is that you experience profound and intense destructive behaviors, and yet everyone else sees what appears to be a successful, well adjusted, and healthy person.

It is an isolating experience because it is difficult to find validation and support from people outside your relationship because no one believes what you claim is happening.  In my case, it even took a therapist almost two years to realize that the facade presented by my exw was completely false.

I'm sure others will contribute more on this topic.

The DSM 5 makes this all more clear.  Clinically, BPD is about dysfunction.  What is "high functioning dysfunction"?  Probably similar to "intelligent mental retardation", which is low intelligence.

High functioning, or sub-clinical BPD means a lot of things. They are not as severe, are more responsive to therapy, and are more likely to self resolve. These are more obvious to the partners of the disorder sufferer, but not as obvious to others.

Because BPD and sub-clinical BPD are disorders of relationship instability, it makes sense that the problems are much more apparent to a relationship partner.

Yeah, but ... .:)

There is something to the "high functioning" concept. You can have the same kind of black and white thinking, the history of dysfunctional relationships, the unstable self-image, etc., and as long as in you they don't manifest with suicide attempts, cutting, and so forth the odds of even you seeing that you have a disorder drop, big time.

It's still dysfunctional, still destructive to your life and those around you (granted, not quite as dysfunctional as directly trying to kill yourself), but much less likely to be identified and treated.

And much harder to measure the treatment outcomes. We can measure, for example - does DBT reduce the number of hospitalizations, suicide attempts, mortality, etc.? Much harder to measure (and is anyone even trying?) does DBT produce greater relationship stability, better work performance, better parenting?

"Almost" borderline  personality disorder, "almost" narcissistic personality disorder and "almost" Schizophrenic states can make for very difficult people. There is no question.

However, it's not "much harder" to measure improvements in relationship stability in subclinical BPD than it is in clinical BPD - it is the same.  It's hard to measure in both and clinical studies show that this particialr aspect of the disorder is harder to resolve than suicidal behavior, for example.  Relatively speaking, it is easier to resolve traits in subclinical BPD than it is to resolve traits in clinical BPD, just like it easier to heal a sprain than a compound fracture.

All that said, your point that subclinical can be extremely destructive is true.  I agree.  The DSM-5's point is that it's all a continuum. It is not a unique and special circumstance as it is sometimes portrayed.

I guess I wasn't being clear. I wasn't referring to "almost" or subclinical situations. It's possible to have clinical BPD, and not be (just for example) actively suicidal. It's just harder to diagnose.

The core traits of BPD can manifest in different ways, in different people. Some ways are easier to see clinically. Some ways are easier to see outside of close relationships. Some ways can get you - accurately - diagnosed, if you are forthcoming about them to the professional, but not if you aren't.

People can also move between different types of functioning (moving from "high" to "low" is sometimes called "decompensating". My wife didn't "not have BPD" before she started a string of hospitalizations (and the actions that resulted in them) that got her that diagnosis. She had the same black and white thinking, the history of unstable relationships, the unstable self-image, etc. It just hadn't - yet - resulted in the kind of actions that get you identified and treated.

my partner has been diagnosed as having BPD personality traits with clusters b and c. Where would he fit into these categories. , does it mean that he doesnt have BPD . Or its just a nicer way to diagnose someone.

Bluebutterfly-the new criteria is supposed to be a more thorough look at the disorder and takes into account there is a continuum is severity that may manifest in a variety of behaviors.  Part of the new release trims out some of the other disorders and streamlined the possible diagnoses.  If your partner has the diagnosis now and you are seeing destructive behaviors that is the most pressing issue.

This is very interesting.

What I do not understand, is that they will reduce the PDs. So what about NPD? If it is so, why? And what are the consequences about this? What do you think?

Surnia,

From what I have been told by my therapist, they have still not made all the decision on the DSM V so what I am hearing now can be changed.  I am not sure what is going to happen to NPD but it may be absored into BPD.  What I do know is they are discussing changes as to how to define BPD.  One of the things I have heard is they is going to be a stronger link to BPD and Bi-Polar.  How much of a link and what the details I am not sure.  They is also going to be some kind of disorder that is a mild case of BPD.  And the other thing I am hearing is BPD flair ups this is someone who has been in a BPD remission but has it return.  That is all I know for now but if I hear more I will let you know.

Is it on a scale of 1-10?

Is 8 and above the truly severe where they hurt themselves physically?

Would a 6 or 7 be where they just get mad weekly at little things and cause issues in the relationship?

I'm wondering how to classify my exgfBPD whom I'm pretty sure is in the middle ground. Not severe, but it impacts her relationships - at least it did ours.

I really wish they would change the name too! It is VERY misleading and doesn't help people understand or grasp the seriousness of this disorder and how it affects all who come into contact with them.

Hi,

Well I look at the new criteria and even the old and scratch my head. BPD and having had a partner who was described by my psychiatrist who is a Uni lecturer and has 30 years in the field as being 8 if not 9 of the old criteria, I always come up short seeing the criteria. Same too having a mother who also is BPD but a milder all be no less destructive form and again I come up short.

Both are unlikely to ever seek help. Both even if they did seek help are high functioning and despite for my ex partner having a very high score, she will always fall through the diagnosed criteria for the simple reason she is not a cutter only one who threatens it.

Whilst I now have zero doubt as does my psychiatrist about the BPD diagnosis in my ex, having been there and not being aware of it until post relationship, if my ex was presented to even very experienced people in the field as a high functioning one I suspect in a blind test about half of them would fail to diagnose or call it a mild impairment at best.

Diagnosis actually comes down to the non BPD's I suspect in many cases vs the actual sufferer in those that are high functioning. The high functioning BPD suffers who will never seek help will like my 80 plus year old mother remain undiagnosed. What actually tipped the scales for even my own psychiatrist was I actually taped a few rage sessions and he listened in rapture and went oh my that is her personality splitting and made comments as the tirade was replayed to him over the course of a 30 minute attack. I didn't really remember my own actions until it was replayed but I didn't swear or abuse or even yell just asked she leave me alone whilst it went from bad to worse.

Unfortunately diagnosis for even very experienced health care professionals at times is impossible. I look at this criteria and even the new one and whilst my ex may have had relationships which have lasted 20 or more years with friends, post relationship with me she shredded those and discarded them at will. They were of course superficial and like me those discarded scratched their heads and wondered what had happened. They like myself were disposable. It may have appeared if asked my ex had long standing relationships but they were are as always sadly disposable. Even friends of such a long time who gave gifts to my ex's children every year for the past 15 years whilst any test might have had them disproving a BPD type personality, they too went out the window of late. How disposable are these people in their lives ? It was of course an enabling relationship they had where it was one sided on the main.

I do wonder after reading the new criteria and my own experiences with BPD what the real percentage of BPD suffers is out there vs those diagnosed ?

Many thanks for the great thread and discussion as always   

The new scale is a 0 to 4.  0 being healthy and 4 severly impaired.  There needs to be at least a 2 in one from each category of criteria Self (identity or self direction) and Interpersonal (intimacy or empathy) along with the other factors listed impulsivity, hostility, mood lability, etc for clinical diagnosis with a longstanding pervasive pattern.  The more severe the more likely the behavior is to affect a larger number of relationships and to see more severe emotional reactions outside of just romantic/family... .like work or acquaintances.

It could be a weekly thing, it could be monthly, daily.  It probably depends on if the person is triggered and by whom.  If you see an impaired relationships pattern because of the behavior its a pretty good indication that there is an impairment but it may not be a 2.

Most of the members partners don't qualify for clinical diagnosis but have traits.  These traits can still make the relationship very difficult with a lot of conflict.

Personality disorder revamp ends in 'horrible waste'

A planned overhaul of the way in which personality disorders are diagnosed will not now appear in the manual dubbed "the bible of psychiatry".

The failure to agree a workable system for the next edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as DSM-5 is bad news for people with serious personality difficulties, who are frequently misdiagnosed.

"It's a horrible wasted opportunity," says Jonathan Shedler of the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver, one of the fiercest critics of the rejected new system.

Personality disorders revolve around difficulties in relating to other people, but can manifest in different ways. Experts agree that the system in the current DSM, which dates from 1994, is seriously flawed. It features a bewildering set of symptoms and checklists that attempts to match patients to one of 10 disorders.

Symptoms, not cause

The problem is that patients may end up being diagnosed with several disorders at the same time, while others with seriously disturbed personalities don't clearly meet any of the diagnoses. Add this confusion to the commonly held but outdated view that personality disorders can't be treated, and many patients never get the help they need.

Rather than receiving intensive psychotherapy, which can be effective, patients with personality disorders often get treated for the anxiety and depression that can be triggered by their difficulties with social interaction. Others get misdiagnosed as suffering from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or even post-traumatic stress disorder.

"They go from therapist to therapist and don't get any help," says Valerie Porr, president of the non-profit organisation Treatment and Research Advancements Association for Personality Disorder in New York City.

Five traits

The DSM-5 personality disorders work group developed a system that recognised that personalities don't come in black and white, but instead operate in shades of grey. It proposed two scales of "personality functioning" based on people's interpersonal interactions and sense of self, and said that patients should also be rated for five pathological personality traits, including antagonism and impulsivity.

The proposed system got even more complicated when the task force overseeing the entire DSM-5 revision asked the group to try and map the existing disorders onto the new framework – which was done for six of the 10 disorders.

The resulting hybrid was criticised for being too complex for use by busy doctors, and was given the thumbs down by two expert committees, asked to review the scientific basis and clinical value of all of the DSM-5 proposals.

As a result, when the APA's Board of Trustees on Saturday approved what should go into the final volume, due to be published in May 2013, the section on personality disorders was the main casualty. The board backed a recommendation to exclude it from the main text and instead publish it in a section describing diagnoses requiring further study.

Andrew Skodol of the University of Arizona in Tucson, who headed the work group responsible for the proposal, hopes that it may be shifted into the main DSM text after further research. "It's already being studied and ultimately I have faith the people will see its scientific soundness and clinical utility," he says.

Top priority

David Kupfer of the University of Pittsburgh, who chairs the APA task force overseeing the development of DSM-5, says that further research to test the value of the new proposals will be top priority: "We really want them to be high on the agenda."

However, the main focus of attention will now shift to a group headed by Peter Tyrer of Imperial College London, which is working on a new system of diagnosing personality disorders for the next edition of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD), due out in 2015. Although it holds less sway over psychiatry, particularly in the US, than the DSM, the ICD is the main system used for medical diagnosis across the globe.

Tyrer's group has also devised a system that rates the scale of patients' personality problems – but its proposal is simpler. It is based on a four-point scale rating people's problems relating to others, running from "personality difficulties" through mild, moderate and severe personality disorder.

This would be supported by ratings for "domains" of personality, linked to extremes on four of the "big five" personality traits recognised by psychologists: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience. For example, patients who currently meet criteria for borderline personality disorder, whose relationships may swing between adulation and outbursts of anger, would be rated as having problems on a scale of negative emotion, linked to the trait of neuroticism.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn22563-personality-disorder-revamp-ends-in-horrible-waste.html

The categorical model and criteria for the 10 personality disorders in the DSM-IV will remain the same in the new manual. However, to encourage further study on how personality disorders can be diagnosed, the DSM-5 will include a separate section with new trait-specific methodology.

"During the development process of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM-5), several proposed revisions were drafted that would have significantly changed the method by which individuals with these disorders are diagnosed. Based on feedback from a multilevel review of proposed revisions, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees ultimately decided to retain the DSM-IV categorical approach with the same 10 personality disorders.

The proposed revisions that were not accepted for the main body of the manual were approved as an alternative hybrid dimensional-categorical model that will be included in a separate chapter in Section III of DSM-5. This alternative model is included to encourage further study on how this new methodology could be used to assess personality and diagnose personality disorders in clinical practice"

Source: www.dsm5.org/Documents/Personality%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf