Validation of a screening procedure for borderline personality disorder based on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders
Objectives The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes an Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (DSM-5), which defines personality disorders based on two dimensional criteria. Criterion A corresponds to the severity of personality dysfunction in the areas of self and interpersonal functioning, while Criterion B comprises five pathological domains including a total of 25 facets. Six specific disorders, including borderline personality disorder (BPD), are defined in the AMPD based on Criteria A and B. However, there is currently very little data on these diagnoses as they are operationalized in the MATP. This study aims to present data on this recent operationalization of BPD. More specifically, we will first introduce a procedure, based on self-reported questionnaires covering the two main MATP criteria, implemented to generate the BPD diagnosis from the AMPD. Then, we will assess its validity (a) by documenting its prevalence in a clinical sample; (b) by determining its degree of correspondence with the “traditional” BPD categorical diagnosis and with a dimensional measure of borderline symptomatology; (c) by presenting convergent validity data with constructs relevant to the study of BPD (impulsivity, aggression); and (d) by determining the incremental validity of the proposed procedure in contrast with a simplified approach where only Criterion B would be considered. Method Data from 287 patients recruited as part of the admission process at the Centre de traitement le Faubourg Saint-Jean of the CIUSSS-Capitale-Nationale were analyzed. The BPD diagnosis from the MATP was generated based on two validated self-report questionnaires, in their French version, namely the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (Criterion A) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Faceted Brief Form (Criterion B). Results The BPD diagnosis, as operationalized in the AMPD, had a prevalence of 39.7% in the sample. A moderate fit with the clinician’s diagnosis of BPD according to the traditional DSM-5 categorical model was observed, as well as a strong correlation with a dimensional measure of borderline symptomatology. Nomological network analysis revealed high and theoretically expected correlations between the disorder and measures of aggression and impulsivity. The proposed diagnostic extraction procedure, which uses Criteria A and B, showed incremental validity in the statistical prediction of external variables (borderline symptomatology, aggression, impulsivity) compared to a simplified procedure using only Criterion B. Conclusions The proposed procedure for generating the BPD diagnosis according to the MATP definition yields promising results and could allow screening for the disorder based on this contemporary conceptualization of personality pathologies.