Abstract
Objective: The transition from categorical models of personality disorders to a dimensional approach of personality functioning, as conceptualized by the DSM-5 and ICD-11, represents a challenge for the clinical area to implement new diagnostic methods for personality disorders. While it also seems that the personality functioning concept has a broader application because of its ability to capture the overall severity of psychopathology.
The psychometric properties of Czech versions of two instruments assessing personality functioning have been verified already. However, for their future use, they must be subjected to further research.
Therefore, in this study, we focus on their ability to discriminate between those without a psychiatric diagnosis and two groups of people with a psychiatric diagnosis. Method: The study was conducted on 163 respondents from three groups: 1) patients with personality disorders (n = 58), 2) patients with increased neuroticism score (n = 50), 3) general population (n = 55).
Personality functioning was assessed by self-report questionnaire Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) and clinician-rated Semi-structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM-5 (STiP 5.1). Results: The three groups differed in their level of personality functioning.
Generally, people with personality disorders had the highest level of personality functioning impairment, the general population had the lowest level of impairment, the group with increased neuroticism score was in the middle. While the STiP-5.1 was able to differentiate within the patients' groups, the ability of LPFS-BF 2.0 was limited.
From the demographic variables, age correlated with personality functioning, suggesting a trend toward more mature personality functioning in older age. Also, higher education levels were associated with lower personality functioning impairment.
Conclusion: The semi-structured interview STiP-5.1 and the screening questionnaire LPFS-BF 2.0 showed adequate ability to discriminate between the three study groups. Both methods are user-friendly, and given the psychometric properties of their Czech versions, they can be recommended for research proposes and with caution to use in clinical practice.
Thus, the repertoire of modern methods available in the Czech Republic for assessing (not only) personality disorders is expanding.