Beheydt, L;
Schrijvers, D;
Sabbe, B;
Jansen, B;
De Grave, C;
Luyten, P;
(2020)
DSM-5 Assessments of the Level of Personality Functioning: Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Functioning.
Psychiatry
, 83
(1)
pp. 84-93.
10.1080/00332747.2019.1650411.
Preview |
Text (Article)
Luyten Full paper and references.pdf - Accepted Version Download (334kB) | Preview |
Preview |
Text (Table 1)
Luyten Table 1.pdf - Accepted Version Download (376kB) | Preview |
Preview |
Text (Table 2)
Luyten Table 2.pdf - Accepted Version Download (484kB) | Preview |
Preview |
Text (Table S1)
Luyten Table S1.pdf - Accepted Version Download (313kB) | Preview |
Preview |
Text (Table S2)
Luyten Table S2.pdf - Accepted Version Download (327kB) | Preview |
Preview |
Text (Table S3)
Luyten Table S3.pdf - Accepted Version Download (323kB) | Preview |
Preview |
Text (Table S4)
Luyten Table S4.pdf - Accepted Version Download (321kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Objective: In DSM-5, Section III, the Level of Personality Functioning (LPF) was proposed as a severity index of personality disorders (PDs), but as it reflects both trait-like (availability) and state-like (accessibility) features, of which, moreover, the relationship with the experience of patients is unclear, we critically examined LPF in patients with general psychopathology. Method: This study compared the validity of the direct Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO), and the indirect Differentiation-Relatedness Scale (DRS) LPF-measure, in relation to measures of intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning. The sample consisted of 70 inpatients with general psychopathology and no primary PDs. Associations of both measures with DSM-PDs were examined, with and without controlling for clinical distress. Results: The IPO was significantly related to age and clinical distress. When controlling for clinical distress, the IPO was still associated with cluster A (odd) and B (erratic) PD features, high levels of self-criticism, conflict in relationships and low levels of adaptive coping strategies. The DRS was only related to the schizotypical PD. Conclusions: In patients with general psychopathology, both the IPO and the DRS, appear to have limitations in measuring LPF. The IPO seems to be prone to state effects, although correlations with PDs remained significant when controlling for clinical distress. The DRS seemed to be more independent from clinical distress but was unexpectedly unrelated to features of personality pathology. DRS reflects availability, while IPO also reflects different degrees of accessibility of LPF in PDs.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
