Negative Emotionality Across Diagnostic Models: RDoC, DSM-5 Section III, and FFM

被引:12
|
作者
Gore, Whitney L. [1 ]
Widiger, Thomas A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Kentucky, Dept Psychol, Lexington, KY 40506 USA
关键词
RDoC; DSM-5 Section III; five-factor model; negative emotionality; affective instability; BORDERLINE PERSONALITY-DISORDER; AFFECTIVE INSTABILITY; TRAIT MODEL; CAT-PD; NEUROTICISM; FRAMEWORK; CLASSIFICATION; INVENTORY; DOMAIN; NEUROSCIENCE;
D O I
10.1037/per0000273
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
The research domain criteria (RDoC) were established in an effort to explore underlying dimensions that cut across many existing disorders and to provide an alternative to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). One purpose of the present study was to suggest a potential alignment of RDoC negative valence with 2 other dimensional models of negative emotionality: five-factor model (FFM) neuroticism and the DSM-5 Section III negative affectivity. A second purpose of the study, though, was to compare their coverage of negative emotionality, more specifically with respect to affective instability. Participants were adult community residents (N = 90) currently in mental health treatment. Participants received self-report measures of RDoC negative valence, FFM neuroticism, and DSM-5 Section III negative affectivity, along with measures of affective instability, borderline personality disorder, and impairment. Findings suggested that RDoC negative valence is commensurate with FFM neuroticism and DSM-5 Section III negative affectivity, and it would be beneficial if it was expanded to include affective instability.
引用
收藏
页码:155 / 164
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] PTSD, Endophenotypes, the RDoC, and the DSM-5
    Young G.
    Psychological Injury and Law, 2014, 7 (1) : 75 - 91
  • [2] RDoC and DSM-5: Whats the Fuss?
    Carpenter, William T.
    SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN, 2013, 39 (05) : 945 - 946
  • [3] DSM-5 and RDoC: progress in psychiatry research?
    B. J. Casey
    Nick Craddock
    Bruce N. Cuthbert
    Steven E. Hyman
    Francis S. Lee
    Kerry J. Ressler
    Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2013, 14 : 810 - 814
  • [4] The quest for better diagnosis: DSM-5 or RDoC?
    Nardi, Antonio Egidio
    Kapczinski, Flavio
    Quevedo, Joao
    Hallak, Jaime E. C.
    Freire, Rafael
    Romano-Silva, Marco Aurelio
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE PSIQUIATRIA, 2013, 35 (02) : 109 - 110
  • [5] DSM-5 and RDoC: progress in psychiatry research?
    Casey, B. J.
    Craddock, Nick
    Cuthbert, Bruce N.
    Hyman, Steven E.
    Lee, Francis S.
    Ressler, Kerry J.
    NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 14 (11) : 810 - 814
  • [6] Convergence between DSM-5 Section II and Section III diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder
    Sellbom, Martin
    Sansone, Randy A.
    Songer, Douglas A.
    Anderson, Jaime L.
    AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2014, 48 (04): : 325 - 332
  • [7] Measurement Invariance of the DSM-5 Section III Pathological Personality Trait Model Across Sex
    Suzuki, Takakuni
    South, Susan C.
    Samuel, Douglas B.
    Wright, Aidan G. C.
    Yalch, Matthew M.
    Hopwood, Christopher J.
    Thomas, Katherine M.
    PERSONALITY DISORDERS-THEORY RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2019, 10 (02) : 114 - 122
  • [8] Examination of the Section III DSM-5 Diagnostic System for Personality Disorders in an Outpatient Clinical Sample
    Few, Lauren R.
    Miller, Joshua D.
    Rothbaum, Alex O.
    Meller, Suzanne
    Maples, Jessica
    Terry, Douglas P.
    Collins, Brittany
    MacKillop, James
    JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2013, 122 (04) : 1057 - 1069
  • [9] Relating DSM-5 section II and section III personality disorder diagnostic classification systems to treatment planning
    Morey, Leslie C.
    Benson, Kathryn T.
    COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHIATRY, 2016, 68 : 48 - 55
  • [10] A comparison of the DSM-5 Section II and Section III personality disorder structures
    Anderson, Jaime
    Snider, Stephen
    Sellbom, Martin
    Krueger, Robert
    Hopwood, Christopher
    PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 2014, 216 (03) : 363 - 372