Advertisement

The Structure of DSM-IV Borderline Personality Disorder and Its Implications for Treatment

  • Cesare Maffei
  • Andrea Fossati
Chapter

Abstract

Since Stern’s observations (1938), the term borderline gained widespread attention in psychiatric practice. For a long time, this term was used in a confusing way, identifying states, syndromes, personality types, and schizophrenia subgroups. In the ’60s, Kernberg (1967) described Borderline personality as a distinct personality organization (BPO), different from Neurotic and Psychotic personality organizations, as well as from classic psychiatric syndromes (e.g., schizophrenia, mood disorders, etc.). With the introduction of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, 3rd Edition (DSM-III) (APA, 1980) and, later, 3rd Edition, Revised (DSM-III-R) (APA, 1987) the Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) was described as one of the Axis II Personality Disorders (PDs). While Kernberg’s BPO heavily relied on a psychoanalytically-oriented diagnostic framework (i.e., based on the identification of inferred psychic functioning), DSM-III/-R tried to convert the previous clinical pictures in an atheoretical, operationalized set of diagnostic criteria for BPD. In agreement with the neo-kraepelinian point of view, BPD was considered as a unidimensional, categorial diagnosis. However, in recent years clinical psychologists built many models normal and abnormal personality functioning based on dimensional constructs. This raised a controversy between models considering BPD as a distinct psychiatric disorder and those looking at BPD as an extreme variant of a normally distributed personality dimension. For the former BPD is a complex intermingling of several stable characteristics of personality (behavioral, cognitive, affective, interpersonal, and temperamental), while for the latter BPD is the extreme expression of a temperamental disposition, such as Novelty Seeking or Neuroticism. This controversy refers to a deeply rooted debate, raised in clinical practice, stressing the pros and cons of each approach. Categorial models are economic, easily transmissible, widely used, and provided with external validity. However, they are stereotyped in non-prototypical and boundary cases, and do not explain comorbidity. Dimensional models provide more vivid pictures, are flexible, and could be converted to categories whenever needed, while the reverse could not be done. However, they are theoretically-based and there is no agreement between theorists on the number of dimensions. While in medicine research showed that some pathologies are better described by categories (e.g., diabetes mellitus), while others by dimensions (e.g., blood hypertension), up to now no definitive data are available in psichiatric and psychological research on PDs.

Keywords

Borderline Personality Disorder Latent Class Personality Disorder Latent Class Analysis Borderline Personality Disorder 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akiskal, H.S. (1981). Subaffective disorders: dysthymic, cyclothymic, and bipolar II disorders in the “borderline” realm. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 4, 25–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd Edition, Revised. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Clarkin, J.F., Hull, J.W., and Hurt, S.W. (1993). Factor structure of borderline personality disorder criteria. Journal of Personality Disorders, 7, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Everitt, B.S. (1993). Cluster analysis. Third edition. London, UK: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  8. Eysenck, H. (1987) The definition of personality disorders and the criteria appropriate for their description. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1, 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. First, M.B., Spitzer, R.L., Gibbon, M., Janet, B.V., and Benjamin, L. (1994). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II), Version 2.0. New York, NY: Biometric Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Guilford, JE and Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education, 6th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Gunderson, J.G., Zanarini, M.C., and Kisiel, C.L. (1991). Borderline personality disorder: a review of data on DSM-III-R descriptions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 5, 340–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henrysson, S. (1963). Correction of item-total correlations in item analysis. Psychometrika, 28, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hurt, S., Clarkin, J., Widiger, T., Fyer, M., Sullivan, T., Stone, M., and Frances, A. (1990). Evaluation of DSM-III decision rules for case detection using joint conditional probability structures. Journal of Person-ality Disorders, 4, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kernberg, O.F. (1967). Borderline personality organization. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 15, 641–685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kernberg, O.F. (1984). Severe Personality Disorders. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Livesley, W.J. (1991). Classifying personality disorders: ideal types, prototypes, or dimensions? Journal of Personality Disorders, 5, 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Livesley, W.J. and Schroeder, M.L. (1991). Dimensions of personality disorder: the DSM-III-R cluster b diagnoses. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 179, 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nurnberg, H.G., Hurt, S.W., Feldman, A., and Shu, R. (1988). Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 1280–1284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Oldham, J.M., Skodol, A.E., Kellman, H.D., Hyler, S.E., Rosnick, L., and Davis, M. (1992). Disagnosis of DSMIII personality disorders by two structured interviews: patterns of comorbidity. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 213–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Paris, J. (1996). Social Factors in the Personality Disorders Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Paris, J., Zweig-Frank, H. (1993). Parental bonding in borderline personality disorder. In J. Paris (Ed.), Borderline personality disorder. Etiology and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  22. Pilkonis, P.A., Heape, C.L., Proietti, J.M., Clark, S.W., McDavid, J.D., and Pitts, T.E. (1995). The reliability and validity of two structured diagnostic interviews for personality disorders. Archives of Geneneral Psychiatry, 52, 1025–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rindskopf, D. and Rindskopf, W. (1986). The value of latent class analysis in medical diagnosis. Statistics in Medicine, 5, 21–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stern, A. (1938). Psychoanalytic investigation of and therapy in the borderline group of neuroses. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 7, 467–489.Google Scholar
  25. Trull, T.J. and McCrae, R.R. (1994). A five-factor perspective on personality disorder research. In P.T. Costa and T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality Disorders and the Five-Factor Model of Personality, 2nd Edition. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  26. Trull, T.J., Widiger, T.A., and Guthrie, P. (1990). The categorical versus dimensional status of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 40–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Uebersax, J.S. and Grove, W.M. (1990). Latent class analysis of diagnostic agreement. Statistics in Medicine, 9, 559–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Widiger, T.A. (1991). Personality disorder dimensional models proposed for DSM-IV. Journal of Personality Disorders, 5, 386–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Widiger, T.A. and Frances, A.J. (1994). Toward a dimensional model for the personality disorders. In P.T. Costa and T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality Disorders and the Five-Factor Model of Personality, 2nd Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  30. Young, M.A. (1983). Evaluating diagnostic criteria: a latent class paradigm. J Psychiatry Research, 17, 285–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cesare Maffei
    • 1
  • Andrea Fossati
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy Unit Istituto Scientifico Ospedale San Raffaele Department of Neuropsychiatric SciencesUniversity of Milan School of MedicineMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Institue of PsychologyUniversity of UrbinoUrbinoItaly

Personalised recommendations