@article{pmid37279316,

title = {[Perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence: Personological profiles of people with borderline personality disorder]},

author = {Claudia Savard and Dominick Gamache and Maude Payant and Élodie Gagné-Pomerleau and Renée-Claude Dompierre and Johanne Maranda and Olivier Potvin and Mélissa Verreault and Marc Tremblay and David Roy and Évens Villeneuve},

issn = {1708-3923},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-01},

journal = {Sante Ment Que},

volume = {47},

number = {2},

pages = {69--93},

abstract = {Objective Personality disorders and intimate partner violence (IPV) are two problems recognized as major public health issues associated with serious individual and societal repercussions. Several studies have documented the links between borderline personality disorder (BPD) and IPV; however, we know very little about the specific pathological traits contributing to IPV. The study aims to document the phenomenon of IPV committed and suffered in persons with BPD and to draw profiles from the personality facets of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). Method One hundred and eight BPD participants (83.3% female; Mage = 32.39, SD = 9.00) referred to a day hospital program following a crisis episode completed a battery of questionnaires including the French versions of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, evaluating physical and psychological IPV committed and suffered, and the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5- Faceted Brief Form, evaluating 25 pathological facets of personality. Results Among the participants, 78.7% report having committed psychological IPV, while 68.5% have been victims, which is more than the estimates published by the World Health Organization (27%). In addition, 31.5% would have committed physical IPV, while 22.2% would have been victims. IPV appears to be bidirectional since 85.9% of participants who are perpetrators of psychological IPV also report suffering from it and 52.9% of participants who are perpetrators of physical IPV report being also victims. Nonparametric group comparisons indicate that Hostility, Suspiciousness, Duplicity, Risk-Taking, and Irresponsibility facets distinguish physically and psychologically violent participants from nonviolent participants. High results on Hostility, Callousness, Manipulation, and Risk-taking facets characterize participants who are victims of psychological IPV, while an elevation in Hostility, Withdrawal, Avoidance of intimacy, and Risk-taking facets and a low result on the Submission facet distinguish participants who are victims of physical IPV from non-victims. Regression analyzes show that the Hostility facet alone explains a significant variance in the results of IPV perpetrated, while the Irresponsibility facet contributes substantially to the variance of the results of IPV experienced. Conclusion Results show the high prevalence of IPV in a sample of persons with BPD, as well as its bidirectional nature. Beyond the diagnosis of BPD, certain specific facets of the personality (including Hostility and Irresponsability) make it possible to target persons at greater risk of committing and suffering from psychological and physical IPV.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{pmid37279314,

title = {[Validation of a screening procedure for borderline personality disorder based on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders]},

author = {Dominick Gamache and Claudia Savard and Maude Payant and Philippe Leclerc and Renée-Claude Dompierre and David Roy and Marc Tremblay and Mélissa Verreault and Évens Villeneuve},

issn = {1708-3923},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-01},

journal = {Sante Ment Que},

volume = {47},

number = {2},

pages = {17--39},

abstract = {Objectives The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes an Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (DSM-5), which defines personality disorders based on two dimensional criteria. Criterion A corresponds to the severity of personality dysfunction in the areas of self and interpersonal functioning, while Criterion B comprises five pathological domains including a total of 25 facets. Six specific disorders, including borderline personality disorder (BPD), are defined in the AMPD based on Criteria A and B. However, there is currently very little data on these diagnoses as they are operationalized in the MATP. This study aims to present data on this recent operationalization of BPD. More specifically, we will first introduce a procedure, based on self-reported questionnaires covering the two main MATP criteria, implemented to generate the BPD diagnosis from the AMPD. Then, we will assess its validity (a) by documenting its prevalence in a clinical sample; (b) by determining its degree of correspondence with the "traditional" BPD categorical diagnosis and with a dimensional measure of borderline symptomatology; (c) by presenting convergent validity data with constructs relevant to the study of BPD (impulsivity, aggression); and (d) by determining the incremental validity of the proposed procedure in contrast with a simplified approach where only Criterion B would be considered. Method Data from 287 patients recruited as part of the admission process at the Centre de traitement le Faubourg Saint-Jean of the CIUSSS-Capitale-Nationale were analyzed. The BPD diagnosis from the MATP was generated based on two validated self-report questionnaires, in their French version, namely the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale (Criterion A) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Faceted Brief Form (Criterion B). Results The BPD diagnosis, as operationalized in the AMPD, had a prevalence of 39.7% in the sample. A moderate fit with the clinician's diagnosis of BPD according to the traditional DSM-5 categorical model was observed, as well as a strong correlation with a dimensional measure of borderline symptomatology. Nomological network analysis revealed high and theoretically expected correlations between the disorder and measures of aggression and impulsivity. The proposed diagnostic extraction procedure, which uses Criteria A and B, showed incremental validity in the statistical prediction of external variables (borderline symptomatology, aggression, impulsivity) compared to a simplified procedure using only Criterion B. Conclusions The proposed procedure for generating the BPD diagnosis according to the MATP definition yields promising results and could allow screening for the disorder based on this contemporary conceptualization of personality pathologies.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}