Apart from attention from clinical psychologists to full-blown personality pathology, selection and human resources psychologists have become interested in subclinical manifestations of aberrant personality and the impact on individuals’ workplace functioning. Although, there is a great deal of activity developing and validating new instruments like the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5 Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) to assess and evaluate (Bagby, 2013) this new trait model, the diagnosis and assessment of categorical PDs is primarily advocated in the official nomenclature of the American Psychiatric Association.Īt the same time, the attention to PDs, both from an academic and societal perspective, expanded dramatically due to the impairing character of the diagnoses and the increasingly high financial costs involved in the treatment of patients with personality pathology (Gustavsson et al., 2012). Notwithstanding this lively debate, DSM-5 preserved in its Section 2 the categorical PDs like distinguished in DSM-IV, whilst an alternative trait system is referred to Section 3 for further evaluation and research (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Perhaps the greatest “shake up” in the way PDs were discussed has occurred in the move from DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) to DSM-5, proposing dimensional alternatives for the DSM-IV categorical diagnoses (Widiger, Livesley, & Clark, 2009). There has been much debate about personality disorders (PDs) over the years, particularly their definition, conceptualization, occurrence and assessment. Personality Disorders, Personality Pathology, Measures, Questionnaires, Structured Interviews A decision tree helpful to choose among the different measures is also provided. The review should be helpful for clinicians, researchers and also industrial and organizational psychologists, to screen and assess the personality pathology spectrum from subclinical manifestations to full blown personality pathology. This paper attempts a comprehensive review of the instruments to assess all, or specific, individual disorders as described in DSM-5, including structured interviews and inventories. The definition, classification and assessment of personality disorders (PDs) have attracted considerable debate for nearly 50 years.

Received 3 July 2014 revised 1 August 2014 accepted 24 August 2014 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).

1Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UKĢDepartment of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, BelgiumĮmail: © 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Reliability and validity of mcmi iii