Beyond the Statistics: Expert Perspectives on the Debate About the Incremental Validity of the AMPD Criteria

The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) proposes a dimensional framework with two core criteria: Criterion A (personality functioning) and Criterion B (maladaptive traits). Debate remains regarding their incremental validity, with prior studies producing mixed results. This study employed a Delphi method with 17 experts in personality disorders (PDs) to evaluate the conceptual, discriminative, clinical, and informative value of both criteria. Consensus indicated that Criterion B captures individualized trait expressions, while Criterion A was seen as global or individualized, depending on use of total or subscale scores. Both criteria were viewed as having stable and dynamic aspects. Experts noted Criterion A's overlap with general psychopathology, while Criterion B was seen to include both PD-specific and broader traits. Criterion A was mainly associated with informing treatment intensity, and Criterion B with guiding therapeutic style. Both criteria were seen as informative for several mental health outcomes. Despite overlap, most experts opposed merging the criteria.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Personality Disorders
Published
2026-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2026.40.1.73
Primary Topic
Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Beyond the Statistics: Expert Perspectives on the Debate About the Incremental Validity of the AMPD Criteria

Morag F Facon, Eva Dierckx, Gina Rossi, Sebastiaan P. J. van Alphen
Journal of Personality Disorders
Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
article

Beyond the Statistics: Expert Perspectives on the Debate About the Incremental Validity of the AMPD Criteria

Morag F Facon, Eva Dierckx, Gina Rossi, Sebastiaan P. J. van Alphen
article en

Abstract

The Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) proposes a dimensional framework with two core criteria: Criterion A (personality functioning) and Criterion B (maladaptive traits). Debate remains regarding their incremental validity, with prior studies producing mixed results. This study employed a Delphi method with 17 experts in personality disorders (PDs) to evaluate the conceptual, discriminative, clinical, and informative value of both criteria. Consensus indicated that Criterion B captures individualized trait expressions, while Criterion A was seen as global or individualized, depending on use of total or subscale scores. Both criteria were viewed as having stable and dynamic aspects. Experts noted Criterion A's overlap with general psychopathology, while Criterion B was seen to include both PD-specific and broader traits. Criterion A was mainly associated with informing treatment intensity, and Criterion B with guiding therapeutic style. Both criteria were seen as informative for several mental health outcomes. Despite overlap, most experts opposed merging the criteria.

Journal of Personality DisordersVol. 40(1)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE), Maastricht University (NL), Mondriaan GGZ (NL)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Beyond the Statistics: Expert Perspectives on the Debate About the Incremental Validity of the AMPD Criteria — Morag F Facon, Eva Dierckx, et al. · Journal of Personality Disorders (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS