In 2003 the Department of Health, in conjunction with the National Institute for Mental Health in England, outlined the government’s plan for the provision zanarini rating scale for borderline personality disorder pdf mental health services for people with a diagnosis of personality disorder. This emphasised the need for practitioners to have skills in identifying, assessing and treating these disorders. It is important that personality disorders are properly assessed as they are common conditions that have a significant impact on an individual’s functioning in all areas of life. Individuals with personality disorder are more vulnerable to other psychiatric disorders, and personality disorders can complicate recovery from severe mental illness.
This article reviews the classification of personality disorder and some common assessment instruments. It also offers a structure for the assessment of personality disorder. The development and use of standardized assessment of abnormal personality. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications.
The MCMI-III: present and future directions. Temporal reliability of personality in psychiatric patients. Historically, health professions have not always agreed on how best to conceptualise, categorise and define personality disorders. The weighted prevalence for each individual personality disorder varied between 0. Antisocial personality disorder is common in criminal justice settings. Personality disorder is also frequently comorbid with other mental illness. Two broad approaches to the classification of personality disorder exist: the categorical and the dimensional.
Categorical classification is largely based on clinical psychiatry and uses clear operational criteria to define the behavioural elements of personality disorder, inferring that each personality disorder represents a qualitatively distinct clinical syndrome. Categorical classification has a number of fundamental problems. It focuses largely on the behavioural characteristics while ignoring the underlying psychopathology. As a number of different behavioural criteria can characterise a disorder, this system allows heterogeneity. Categorical systems have arbitrary cut-offs to classify the disorder. Also, some of the information obtained through a personality profile is lost in a categorical system. There is minimal empirical support for the perspective that disordered personalities can be captured by distinct categories, compared with the alternative perspective that there should be a quantitative distinction, with personality disorders on a continuum with one another, with mental disorders and with normal personality functioning.