From categorical diagnosis to dimensional assessment of borderline personality
More details
Hide details
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Submission date: 2019-05-26
Final revision date: 2019-09-03
Acceptance date: 2019-10-04
Online publication date: 2019-11-11
Publication date: 2019-12-30
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2019;7(4):355-360
Recent research suggested that personality disorders could be diagnosed as a continuous phenomenon. Therefore, in our study we examined whether the dimensional model of pathological personality traits could be applied to the assessment of borderline personality1. For this purpose, we modified an existing measure of borderline personality, the McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD), and scrutinized its psychometric properties (i.e., reliability, factorial structure, criterion validity). To assess criterion validity we calculated correlations with pathological personality traits. Our sample comprised 354 participants (67.8% women). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the modified MSI-BPD measures borderline per-sonality as a global construct, giving one-factor structure. The reliability of the measurement was excellent (α = .90). Moreover, we found positive associations between borderline personality and all five pathological person-ality traits, which supports the validity of the continuous assessment of borderline personality. Our findings sug-gest that the DSM-5 dimensional model may be applied in the assessment of borderline personality.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Bach, B., & Sellbom, M. (2016). Continuity between DSM-5 categorical criteria and traits criteria for borderline personality disorder. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 61, 489–494.
Biskin, R., & Paris, J. (2012). Diagnosing borderline personality disorder. Canadian Medical Association Jour-nal, 184, 1789–1794.
Distefano, C., Liu, J., Jiang, N., & Shi, D. (2017). Examination of the weighted root mean square residual: Evi-dence for trustworthiness? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25, 453–466.
Esbec, E., & Echeburúa, E. (2015). The hybrid model for the classification of personality disorders in DSM-5: A critical analysis. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría, 43, 177–186.
Gunderson, J. G., Herpertz, S. C., Skodol, A. E., Torgersen, S., & Zanarini, M. C. (2018). Borderline personality disorder. Nature Reviews. Disease Primers, 4, 18029.
Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., ... & Zimmermann, J. (2018). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personality and Mental Health, 12, 82–86.
Kenny, D., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486–507.
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2013). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF). Manuscript in preparation.
Muthén, B. O. (1998–2004). Mplus technical appendices. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Saris, W. E., & Gallhofer, I. N. (2007). Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23–74.
Stoyanov, D., Machamer, P. K., & Schaffner, K. F. (2012). Rendering clinical psychology an evidence-based scientific discipline: A case study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18, 149–154.
Strus, W., Rowiński, T., Cieciuch, J., Kowalska-Dąbrowska, M., Czuma, I., & Żechowski, C. (2017). The patho-logical big five: An attempt to build a bridge between the psychiatric classification of personality disorders and the trait model of normal personality. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 20, 451–472.
Tomko, R. L., Trull, T. J., Wood, P. K., & Sher, K. J. (2014). Characteristics of borderline personality disorder in a community sample: Comorbidity, treatment utilization, and general functioning. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 734–750.
Trull, T. J., Distel, M., & Carpenter, R. (2011). DSM-5 borderline personality disorder: At the border between a dimensional and a categorical view. Current Psychiatry Reports, 13, 43–49.
Trull, T. J., & Durrett, C. A. (2005). Categorical and dimensional models of personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 355–380.
Trull, T. J., Scheiderer, E. M., & Tomko, R. L. (2012). Axis II comorbidity. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personality disorders (pp. 219–236). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 71–83.
Zanarini, M. C., Vujanovic, A. A., Parachini, E. A., Boulanger, J. L., Frankenburg, F. R., & Hennen, J. (2003). A screening measure for BPD: The McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD). Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 568–573.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top