[The alternative model of personality disorders among the French population: Assessment with brief tools].

The aim of this work was to study whether the French versions of the brief tools available to clinicians within the framework of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) can account for the risks of personality disorders in the general population. Tools are available to accurately investigate either the Level of Personality Functioning (LPF) or the Pathological Personality Dimensions (PPD) which in turn allow the validation of the relevance of the AMPD for its criteria A and B. As these tools, such as Morey's Level of Personality Functioning Scale Self Rated (LPFS-SR) for Criteria A or the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID5) by Krueger et al. for Criteria B, are lengthy, the question arises as to the use of the short tools derived from them. Data was collected from a sample of 433 people recruited on a volunteer basis with a complete protocol. The sample was predominantly female (83% female, 16% male, 2 people who did not wish to report their gender) and rather young (67% were 18-24 years old). The short version, the LPFS- BF of Hutsbaut et al., which we used in this work allows, as confirmed by several works, to consider on the basis of 12 items the global level of personality functioning. In order to assess the pathological dimensions of personality (PPD), we chose the short version of the Personality Inventory for DSM 5 (PID 5 BF) by Krueger et al. and used its validated French translation that satisfies the factor composition of the original version: Negative Affectivity, Antagonism, Detachment, Disinhibition and Psychoticism. To assess the intensity of personality disorders we used the dedicated subscale (Items 19 and 20) that the DSM 5 proposes in its Cross-Cutting Symptoms Measures of Level 1, in its French translation. A score higher than 2 was our Gold Standard when we tested the metric capacity of the two questionnaires to evaluate the A Criteria and then the B Criteria of the AMPD. The overall results (Table 1) show levels that place the group in a non-clinical level. In terms of the severity of personality disorders it can be seen that 27 % are at risk of personality disorder (PDs>2). Comparing these two sub-groups (Table 1), we observed significant differences for all the factors studied, pointing towards a higher score for people at risk of PDs. A logistic regression analysis of the evaluation of persons at risk lead us to find that gender and age do not have a significant influence (p=0.225 and p=0.065 respectively) in a valid model (chi square=157, df=4, p<0.001) including the overall score on the LPFS (z=5.76, p<0.001) and the PID 5 (z=2.26, p<0.001). The Area Under the Curve (AUC=0.859) of this translation (Table 3) is consistent with the original version (AUC=0.84). It has metrological qualities (Sn=73.91%, Sp=85.33%, LR+=5.1, LR-=0.3005) that allowed us to use a threshold of 24 as a discriminant of a risk of moderate or severe personality disorder. In addition, if we followed the AMPD and considered the threshold of 24 on the LFPS-BF to be a risk score for personality disorder, we could see (Fig. 2) that the scores on the PID 5 BF fairly well reflected the expected pattern with a large AUC (0.901). According to the AMPD, the cut-points for the dimensions that would evoke the presence of criteria B in the case of the presence of criterion A (LPFS-BF>24) could be either a score greater than 2 for Negative Affectivity, a score greater than 0.8 for Detachment, Antagonism and Disinhibition, or a score greater than 1.2 for Psychoticism (Table 4). The translation of the LPFS-BF that we used in this work has sufficient qualities to assess situations at risk of personality disorders when higher than 24. Its consistency was good (=0.84), and its factor composition in two factors (Self and Interpersonal Relations) was equivalent to the original version. The use of PID5-BF could therefore be used as a complement to the screening of AMPD A criteria, with a 25 for cut-point. The evaluation of the AMPD B criteria with the PID5-BF seemed relevant in view of our results; each of the subscales seemed to be able to correctly evaluate (AUC) persons with an LPFS-BF score at risk. However, the risk thresholds need to be confirmed in further work because of the essential role that the dimensions play in the diagnosis of types of personality disorders.

Combaluzier S ，Gouvernet B ，Auvage L ，Bourgoise C ，Murphy P ... -  《ENCEPHALE-REVUE DE PSYCHIATRIE CLINIQUE BIOLOGIQUE ET THERAPEUTIQUE》

[Validation of a French translation of Krueger's personality inventory for DSM-5 in its brief form (PID-5 BF)].

Since the publication of the DSM-5 (APA, 2013), the dimensional conception of the personality disorders is co-existing with the classical categorical paradigm. Tools have been proposed for the evaluations of five big pathological factors to be explored further according to the APA (negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, psychoticism). Despite numerous works using these questionnaires (30 works in 3 years according to Al-Adjani et al., 2015), none of them have yet been translated into French. Also, the main objective of the paper is to present a French translation of the Personality Inventory for DSM -5 by Kruegger et al. (2013) in its brief form of 25 items (PID-5 BF). To reach this goal, we have employed the classic translation-retranslation method (Vallerand, 1989) and tested the consistence and the validity of this French version among a non-clinical sample (n=216) of young adults (age=31.4, SD=4.8), in joining some other questionnaires in their short forms to study the external validity of the PID-5 about the psychological distress (SCL-10, Nguyen, 1983), the categorical diagnosis of personality disorders (SAPAS, Moran et al., 2003) and the classical Big Five dimensions of the personality (BDI 10, Ramamstedt and John, 2007). The internal consistency of this translation has been studied through the classical outcomes on factor analysis for the dimensional repartitions of the items in 5 scales and Cronbach's alpha for the consistency of each found dimensions. The external validity has been explored by studying Pearson's correlations between the outcomes on each dimension of the PID-5 BF and both the clinical dimensions of SCL-10, personality dimensions of the BFI-10 or personality disorders (SAPAS). Factor analysis led to the same repartition of the 25 items as the original versions. Each of the dimensions is consistent enough (α>.65) to be taken into account as clinically significant. The items of the French version of the PID-5 BF follow the expected repartitions in 5 dimensions, which are consistent enough. Although their mean scores are significantly not different from the outcomes found by Krueger with the PID-5 200 items among another non-clinical population (n=264), one cannot say that is enough to ensure the external validity of our translation, for it uses neither the same tools nor sample. A comparison with a French translation of the PID-5 would be more significant. However, the external validity of the French version seems to be significant enough. Global score on the PID-5 is correlated both to the Global Severity Index of the SCL-10, which reflects global psychological distress, and SAPAS's score, which evaluates the suspicion of personality disorder. The clinical validity of the PID-5 is confirmed by the relationships between negative affectivity and anxiety or depression or antagonism and hostility, although the clinical scale of the SCL-10, with one item by dimension, is less sensitive than the complete original version in 90 items (DeRogatis, 1974). PID-5 score and domains are also correlated with the Big Five personality dimension and global score of personality disorders which led us to think that it is coherent with the evaluation of personality suffering (r=.34) and dimensions. The links between negative affectivity and neurosism (r=.48) or between desinhibition and extraversion (r=.32) or the negative correlation between psychoticism and conscientiousness (r=-0.16) are consistent with the expectations related both to the descriptions of the domains by the DSM and outcomes on the comparisons between PID-5 200 item scales and NEO-PI or BFI 45 items. This translation offers enough consistency and validity to be used in future studies. This could lead us to either continue studying a more representative general population or testing its validity in focusing on a clinical sample where personality disorders are prevalent, such as homeless men or substance users. As soon as a French version of the PID-5 200 items is published, one can compare the outcomes on PID-5 BF and PID-5 to lead to estimations of personality disorders and pathological domains among French populations and explore personality disorders throughout a dimensional paradigm instead of syndromic perspective. One can also see whether the items that have been kept for each dimension are as saturated in the French version as in the original one. Among general populations, comparisons with clinical distress, syndromic personality disorders or dimensional aspect of personality could be done with complete versions of PID-5, Symptom Check-list, Personality Disorders Questionnaires or Big Five Inventory; therefore, the brief forms of any questionnaire could be used among any people whose psychological distress or side effects impaired their attention and concentration.

Combaluzier S ，Gouvernet B ，Menant F ，Rezrazi A ... -  《ENCEPHALE-REVUE DE PSYCHIATRIE CLINIQUE BIOLOGIQUE ET THERAPEUTIQUE》

Psychometric Evaluation of the Polish adaptation of a Self-Report Form of the DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS-SR).

Łakuta P ，Cieciuch J ，Strus W ，Morey LC ... -  《-》

Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of a Brief Self-Report Questionnaire for the Assessment of the DSM-5 level of Personality Functioning Scale: The LPFS Brief Form (LPFS-BF).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) alternative model for personality disorders (PDs) introduced a new paradigm for the assessment of PDs that includes levels of personality functioning indexing the severity of personality pathology irrespective of diagnosis. In this study, we describe the development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a newly developed brief self-report questionnaire to assess levels of personality functioning, the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF; Bender, Morey, & Skodol, 2011). Patients (N = 240) referred to a specialized setting for the assessment and treatment of PDs completed the LPFS-BF, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1975), the Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP-118; Verheul et al., 2008), and were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Personality Disorders (SCID-I; APA, 1994; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1997) and the SCID Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, Williams, & Benjamin, 1996). When constrained to a 2-factor oblique solution, the LPFS-BF yielded a structure that corresponded well to an interpretation of Self- and Interpersonal Functioning scales. The instrument demonstrated fair to satisfactory internal consistency and promising construct validity. The LPFS-BF constitutes a short, user-friendly instrument that provides a quick impression of the severity of personality pathology, specifically oriented to the DSM-5 model. Clearly, more research is needed to test its validity and clinical utility.

Hutsebaut J ，Feenstra DJ ，Kamphuis JH 《-》

Normative data for the LPFS-BF 2.0 derived from the Danish general population and relationship with psychosocial impairment.

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 is a frequently used self-report inventory that may be used to screen for self- and interpersonal dysfunction according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders. Nevertheless, reliable norms and cut-off scores to aid interpretation and clinical decision making are still lacking. The LPFS-BF and relevant impairment measures were administered to a sociodemographically stratisfied sample of 2,002 adults from the general Danish population of whom 713 individuals eventually delivered data for inclusion in the present study. The unidimensionality of the LPFS-BF scores was established using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Item-Response Theory (IRT) analysis indicated satisfactory item functioning for all 12 items and suggested normative observed score thresholds at different latent severity levels. Meaningful associations were found between the LPFS-BF norm-based cut-off scores, quality of life, and social and occupational functioning. This study presented the first normative data for LPFS-BF, which specifically applies to Denmark but likely also other socioeconomically comparable Nordic and Western societies. These results allow for interpretation of LPFS-BF scores and clinical decision-making. Future research should corroborate these findings and compare them to scores obtained in other general population samples.

Weekers LC ，Sellbom M ，Hutsebaut J ，Simonsen S ，Bach B ... -  《-》