10007233 J Clin Psychiatry / Document Archive

Psychiatrist.com Home    Keyword Search

Close [X]

Search Our Sites

Enter search terms below (keywords, titles, authors, or subjects). Then select a category to search and press the Search button. All words are assumed to be required. To search for an exact phrase, put it in quotes. To exclude a term, precede it with a minus sign (-).

Keyword search:

Choose a category:

Choosing the appropriate category will greatly improve your chances of finding the best match.

All files at our sites: J Clin Psychiatry, Primary Care Companion, CME Institute, and MedFair

Search materials from our journals:

Abstracts from The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1996–present, both regular issues and supplements

PDFs of the full text of The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1996–present, both regular issues and supplements (Net Society Platinum [paid subscribers])

PDFs of the full text of The Primary Care Companion to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1999–present

Search CME offerings:

CME Institute, including CME from journals , supplements, and Web activities for instant CME credit (Net Society Gold [registered users]); also includes information about our CME program

CME activities from regular issues of The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Net Society Gold [registered users])

CME Supplements from The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Net Society Gold [registered users])


The article you requested is

Can Personality Disorder Experts Recognize DSM-IV Personality Disorders From Five-Factor Model Descriptions of Patient Cases?

J Clin Psychiatry 2011;72(5):630-639
Copyright 2010 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

To view this item, select one of the options below.

    1. Purchase this PDF for $40
      If you are not a paid subscriber, you may purchase the PDF.
      (You'll need the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.)
    2. Subscribe
      Receive immediate full-text access to JCP. You can subscribe to JCP print + online for $166 individual.
      JCP's 75th AnniversaryCelebrate!
      Celebrate JCP's 75th Anniversary with a special online-only subscription price of $75.
    1. Activate
      If you are a paid subscriber to JCP and do not yet have a username and password, activate your subscription now.
    2. Sign in
      As a paid subscriber who has activated your subscription, you have access to the HTML and PDF versions of this item.
  1. Did you forget your password?

Still can't log in? Contact the Circulation Department at 1-800-489-1001 x4 or send an email


Background: Dimensional models of personality are under consideration for integration into the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), but the clinical utility of such models is unclear.

Objective: To test the ability of clinical researchers who specialize in personality disorders to diagnose personality disorders using dimensional assessments and to compare those researchers’ ratings of clinical utility for a dimensional system versus for the DSM-IV.

Method: A sample of 73 researchers who had each published at least 3 (median = 15) articles on personality disorders participated between December 2008 and January 2009. The Five-Factor Model (FFM), one of the most-studied dimensional models to date, was compared to the DSM-IV. Participants provided diagnoses for case profiles in DSM-IV and FFM formats and then rated the DSM-IV and FFM on 6 aspects of clinical utility.

Results: Overall, participants had difficulty identifying correct diagnoses from FFM profiles (t72 = 12.36, P < .01), and the same held true for a subset reporting equal familiarity with the DSM-IV and FFM (t23 = 6.96, P < .01). Participants rated the FFM as less clinically useful than the DSM for making prognoses, devising treatment plans, and communicating with professionals (all t69 > 2.19, all P < .05), but more useful for communicating with patients (t69 = 3.03, P < .01).

Conclusions: The results suggest that personality disorder expertise and familiarity with the FFM are insufficient to correctly diagnose personality disorders using FFM profiles. Because of ambiguity inherent in FFM profile descriptors, this insufficiency may prove unlikely to be attenuated with increased clinical familiarity with the FFM.

J Clin Psychiatry

Submitted: July 5, 2009; accepted October 30, 2009.

Online ahead of print: December 28, 2010 (doi:10.4088/JCP.09m05534gre).

Corresponding author: Benjamin M. Rottman, MS, Department of Psychology, Yale University, Box 208205, New Haven, CT 06520-8205 (benjamin.rottman@yale.edu).