Résumés
Résumé
Objectifs La cinquième édition du Manuel diagnostique et statistique des troubles mentaux (DSM-5) inclut un Modèle alternatif pour les troubles de la personnalité (MATP), qui définit la pathologie de la personnalité en s’appuyant sur 2 principaux critères dimensionnels. Le critère A correspond à la sévérité du dysfonctionnement de la personnalité dans la sphère du soi et dans la sphère interpersonnelle, alors que le critère B propose 5 domaines pathologiques de la personnalité se déclinant en 25 facettes. Six troubles spécifiques, incluant le trouble de personnalité limite (TPL), sont définis dans le MATP sur la base des critères A et B. Il existe toutefois très peu de données à l’heure actuelle sur ces diagnostics tels qu’opérationnalisés dans le MATP. La présente étude vise à présenter des données québécoises sur cette récente opérationnalisation du TPL. Plus spécifiquement, nous présenterons d’abord une procédure, basée sur des questionnaires autorévélés couvrant les 2 critères principaux du MATP, permettant de générer le diagnostic. Puis, nous évaluerons sa validité : a) en documentant la prévalence du diagnostic dans un échantillon clinique ; b) en déterminant son degré de correspondance avec le diagnostic catégoriel « traditionnel » du TPL et avec une mesure dimensionnelle de symptomatologie associée au trouble ; c) en présentant des données de validité convergente avec des construits pertinents pour l’étude du TPL (impulsivité, agression) ; et d) en déterminant la validité incrémentielle de la procédure proposée par rapport à une approche simplifiée où seul le critère B serait considéré.
Méthode Les données de 287 patients recrutés dans le cadre de la démarche d’admission au Centre de traitement le Faubourg Saint-Jean du CIUSSS-Capitale-Nationale ont été analysées. Le diagnostic de TPL selon le MATP a été généré à partir de 2 questionnaires validés, dans leur version francophone, soit le Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (critère A) et le Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Faceted Brief Form (critère B).
Résultats Le diagnostic de TPL, tel qu’opérationnalisé par le MATP, présentait une prévalence de 39,7 % dans l’échantillon. Une correspondance modérée avec le diagnostic de TPL posé par les cliniciens selon le modèle catégoriel traditionnel du DSM-5 a été observée, de même qu’une forte corrélation avec une mesure dimensionnelle de symptomatologie limite. L’analyse du réseau nomologique a révélé des corrélations élevées et théoriquement attendues entre le trouble et des mesures d’agression et d’impulsivité. La procédure d’extraction du diagnostic, qui utilise les critères A et B, montre une validité incrémentielle dans la prédiction statistique des variables externes (symptomatologie limite, agression, impulsivité) par rapport à une procédure simplifiée n’utilisant que le critère B.
Conclusions La procédure proposée pour générer le diagnostic de TPL selon la définition du MATP génère des résultats valides et pourrait permettre un dépistage du trouble selon cette conceptualisation contemporaine des pathologies de la personnalité.
Mots-clés :
- trouble de personnalité limite,
- Modèle alternatif pour les troubles de la personnalité,
- DSM-5,
- évaluation,
- dépistage
Abstract
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.
Keywords:
- borderline personality disorder,
- Alternative Model for Personality Disorders,
- DSM-5,
- assessment,
- screening
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5e éd.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
- Baylé, F. J., Bourdel, M. C., Caci, H., Gorwood, P., Chignon, J. M., Adés, J. et Lôo, H. (2000). Structure factorielle de la traduction française de l’Échelle d’impulsivité de Barratt (BIS-10). Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 45(2), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370004500206
- Bernstein, D. P., Iscan, C., Maser, J., Board of Directors of the Association for Research in Personality Disorders et Board of Directors of the International Society for the Study of Personality Disorders. (2007). Opinions of personality disorder experts regarding the DSM-IV personality disorders classification system. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(5), 536-551. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.5.536
- Bornstein, R. F. (2015). Processed-focused assessment of personality pathology. Dans S. K. Huprich (Ed.), Personality disorders : Toward theoretical and empirical integration in diagnosis and assessment (pp. 271-290). American Psychological Association.
- Davidson, K. M., Obonsawin, M. C., Seils, M. et Patience, L. (2003). Patient and clinician agreement on personality using the SWAP-200. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(3), 208-218. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.3.208.22148
- First, M. B., Skodol, A. E., Bender, D. S. et Oldham, J. M. (2018). Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5® Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (SCID-5-AMPD) Module III : Personality disorders (including personality disorder—trait specified). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.
- First, M. B., Williams, J. B., Benjamin, L. S. et Spitzer, R. L. (2016). SCID-5-PD : Structured Clinical Interview for DSM—5 Personality Disorders. American Psychiatric Association.
- Gamache, D., Leclerc, P., Payant, M., Mayrand, K., Nolin, M.-C., Marcoux, L.-A., Sabourin, S., Tremblay, M. et Savard, C. (2022). Preliminary steps toward extracting the specific Alternative Model for Personality Disorders diagnoses from Criteria A and B self-reports. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1—S6. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2012_35_540
- Gamache, D., Savard, C., Leclerc, P. et Côté, A. (2019). Introducing a short self-report for the assessment of DSM—5 level of personality functioning for personality disorders : The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale. Personality Disorders : Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10(5), 438-447. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000335
- Gamache, D., Savard, C., Leclerc, P., Payant, M., Côté, A., Faucher, J., Lampron, M. et Tremblay, M. (2021). Latent profiles of patients with borderline pathology based on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 8(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-021-00146-w
- Garb, H. N. (1998). Studying the clinician : Judgment research and psychological assessment. American Psychological Association.
- Genoud, P. A. et Zimmermann, G. (2009, Août). French version of the 12-item Aggression Questionnaire : Preliminary psychometric properties. Affiche présentée au 11e congrès de la Swiss Psychological Society, Neuchâtel, Suisse.
- Gøtzsche-Astrup, O. et Moskowitz, A. (2016). Personality disorders and the DSM-5 : Scientific and extra-scientific factors in the maintenance of the status quo. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 50(2), 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415595872
- Gunderson, J. G., Fruzzetti, A., Unruh, B. et Choi-Kain, L. (2018). Competing theories of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 32(2), 148-167. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2018.32.2.148
- Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., Ansell, E. B., Bach, B., Bagby, R. M., Blais, M. A., Bornovalova, M. A., Chmielewski, M., Cicero, D. C., Conway, C., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Docherty, A. R., Eaton, N. R., Edens, J. F.,… Zimmermann, J. (2018). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personality and Mental Health, 12(1), 82-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1408
- Hyatt, C. S., Chester, D. S., Zeichner, A. et Miller, J. D. (2020). Facet-level analysis of the relations between personality and laboratory aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 46, 266-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21887
- Kim, N. S. et Ahn, W.-k. (2002). Clinical psychologists’ theory-based representations of mental disorders predict their diagnostic reasoning and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology : General, 131(4), 451-476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.131.4.451
- Krueger, R. F. et Hobbs, K. A. (2020). An overview of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders. Psychopathology, 53(3-4), 126-132. https://doi.org/10.1159/000508538
- Maples, J. L., Carter, N. T., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Gore, W. L., Samuel, D. B., Williamson, R. L., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F. et Miller, J. D. (2015). Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items : An item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1195-1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000120
- Milinkovic, M. S. et Tiliopoulos, N. (2020). A systematic review of the clinical utility of the DSM—5 Section III Alternative Model of Personality Disorder. Personality Disorders : Theory, Research, and Treatment, 11(6), 377-397. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000408
- Miller, J. D., Bagby, R. M., Hopwood, C. J., Simms, L. J. et Lynam, D. R. (2022). Normative data for PID-5 domains, facets, and personality disorder composites from a representative sample and comparison to community and clinical samples. Personality Disorders : Theory, Research, and Treatment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000548
- Morey, L. C. et Benson, K. T. (2016). An investigation of adherence to diagnostic criteria, revisited : Clinical diagnosis of the DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(1), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_188
- Morey, L. C. et Hopwood, C. J. (2020). Expert preferences for categorical, dimensional, and mixed/hybrid approaches to personality disorder diagnosis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 34(Suppl C), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_398
- Nicastro, R., Prada, P., Kung, A. L., Salamin, V., Dayer, A., Aubry, J. M., Guenot, F. et Perroud, N. (2016). Psychometric properties of the French Borderline Symptom List, short form (BSL-23). Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 3(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-016-0038-0
- Oldham J. M. (2015). The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. World Psychiatry, 14(2), 234-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20232
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. et Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
- Roche, M. J. et Jaweed, S. (2021). Comparing measures of Criterion A to better understand incremental validity in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders. Assessment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211059763
- Roskam, I., Galdiolo, S., Hansenne, M., Massoudi, K., Rossier, J., Gicquel, L. et Rolland, J.-P. (2015). The psychometric properties of the French version of the Personality Inventory for DSM—5. PLoS ONE, 10, Article e0133413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133413
- Samuel, D. B. (2015). A review of the agreement between clinicians’ personality disorder diagnoses and those from other methods and sources. Clinical Psychology : Science and Practice, 22(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12088
- Samuel, D. B., Hopwood, C. J., Krueger, R. F., Thomas, K. M. et Ruggero, C. J. (2013). Comparing methods for scoring personality disorder types using maladaptive traits in DSM-5. Assessment, 20(3), 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486182
- Sharp, C., Wright, A. G. C., Fowler, J. C., Frueh, B. C., Allen, J. G., Oldham, J. et Clark, L. A. (2015). The structure of personality pathology : Both general (‘g’) and specific (‘s’) factors ? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 387-398. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000033
- Sleep, C., Lynam, D. R. et Miller, J. D. (2021). Personality impairment in the DSM-5 and ICD-11 : Current standing and limitations. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 34(1), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000657
- Smits, M. L., Feenstra, D. J., Bales, D. L., de Vos, J., Lucas, Z., Verheul, R. et Luyten, P. (2017). Subtypes of borderline personality disorder patients : a cluster-analytic approach. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 4, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-017-0066-4
- Tyrer, P., Mulder, R., Kim, Y.-R. et Crawford, M. J. (2019). The development of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders : An amalgam of science, pragmatism, and politics. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 481-502. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095736
- Weekers, L. C., Hutsebaut, J., Zimmermann, J. et Kamphuis, J. H. (2021). Changes in the classification of personality disorders : Comparing the DSM—5 Section II personality disorder model to the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders using structured clinical interviews. Personality Disorders : Theory, Research, and Treatment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000512
- World Health Organization (2019). International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/
- Zimmermann, J., Kerber, A., Rek, K., Hopwood, C. et Krueger, F. R. (2019). A brief but comprehensive review of research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 21(9), Article 92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1079-z