ArticlePersonality disorders2026
Latent factors of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders: Associations with psychopathology and psychosocial functioning using self- and interviewer-report methods.
Article in Personality disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) constitutes a major shift in conceptualizing personality pathology and has gained considerable attention among both clinicians and personality pathology researchers. The AMPD has two core components: personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and maladaptive traits (Criterion B). As measures of these components are strongly correlated in self-report, cross-sectional data, some researchers question Criterion A's necessity. We used both self- and interviewer-reported methods to enhance understanding of these AMPD components through principal factors analysis (PFA) and bifactor analysis. Further, we investigated these factors' associations with psychopathology (e.g., mood and anxiety disorder symptoms, criteria for substance use disorders) and psychosocial functioning dimensions (e.g., life satisfaction, interpersonal and occupational problems, daily functioning), again using both self-reported and interviewer-rated measures of these constructs. Six hundred community adults, half each either screened-in as at-risk for personality pathology or currently in outpatient therapy, participated in the study. In both the PFA and bifactor analyses, a distress-and-pathology factor emerged (e.g., negative affectivity, poor self-dysfunction) along with two primarily interpersonal factors: antagonism-disinhibition and detachment. A key difference between the PFA and bifactor analyses was that the interpersonal factors emerged without distress in the bifactor analysis because of the extraction of a general factor and reflected distinct self versus interviewer perspectives. The distress-and-pathology factor consistently displayed meaningful associations with psychopathology symptoms, personality pathology, and psychosocial functioning, whereas the two interpersonal factors were more specifically associated with personality pathology. We discuss the findings' implications for conceptualizing personality pathology and its treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.