The reliability and validity of traditional taxonomies are limited by arbitrary boundaries between psychopathology and normality, often unclear boundaries between disorders, frequent disorder co-occurrence, heterogeneity within disorders, and diagnostic instability. These taxonomies went beyond evidence available on the structure of psychopathology and were shaped by a variety of other considerations, which may explain the aforementioned shortcomings. The Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model has emerged as a research effort to address these problems. It constructs psychopathological syndromes and their components/subtypes based on the observed covariation of symptoms, grouping related symptoms together and thus reducing heterogeneity. It also combines co-occurring syndromes into spectra, thereby mapping out comorbidity. Moreover, it characterizes these phenomena dimensionally, which addresses boundary problems and diagnostic instability. Here, we review the development of the HiTOP and the relevant evidence. The new classification already covers most forms of psychopathology. Dimensional measures have been developed to assess many of the identified components, syndromes, and spectra. Several domains of this model are ready for clinical and research applications. The HiTOP promises to improve research and clinical practice by addressing the aforementioned shortcomings of traditional nosologies. It also provides an effective way to summarize and convey information on risk factors, etiology, pathophysiology, phenomenology, illness course, and treatment response. This can greatly improve the utility of the diagnosis of mental disorders. The new classification remains a work in progress. However, it is developing rapidly and is poised to advance mental health research and care significantly as the relevant science matures.

The construct of narcissism is inconsistently defined across clinical theory, social-personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Two problems were identified that impede integration of research and clinical findings regarding narcissistic personality pathology: (a) ambiguity regarding the assessment of pathological narcissism vs. normal narcissism and (b) insufficient scope of existing narcissism measures. Four studies are presented documenting the initial derivation and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI). The PNI is a 52-item self-report measure assessing 7 dimensions of pathological narcissism spanning problems with narcissistic grandiosity (Entitlement Rage, Exploitativeness, Grandiose Fantasy, Self-sacrificing Self-enhancement) and narcissistic vulnerability (Contingent Self-esteem, Hiding the Self, Devaluing). The PNI structure was validated via confirmatory factor analysis. The PNI correlated negatively with self-esteem and empathy, and positively with shame, interpersonal distress, aggression, and borderline personality organization. Grandiose PNI scales were associated with vindictive, domineering, intrusive, and overly-nurturant interpersonal problems, and vulnerable PNI scales were associated with cold, socially avoidant, and exploitable interpersonal problems. In a small clinical sample, PNI scales exhibited significant associations with parasuicidal behavior, suicide attempts, homicidal ideation, and several aspects of psychotherapy utilization.

A multidimensional trait system has been proposed for representing personality disorder (PD) features in DSM-5 to address problematic classification issues such as comorbidity. In this model, which may also assist in providing scaffolding for the underlying structure of major forms of psychopathology more generally, 25 primary traits are organized by 5 higher order dimensions: Negative Affect, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. We examined a) the generalizability of the structure proposed for DSM-5 PD traits and b) the potential for an integrative hierarchy based upon DSM-5 PD traits to represent the dimensions scaffolding psychopathology more generally. A large sample of student participants (N=2,461) completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5, which operationalizes the DSM-5 traits. Exploratory factor analysis replicated the initially reported five-factor structure as indicated by high factor congruencies. The two-, three-, and four- factor solutions estimated in the hierarchy of the DSM-5 traits bear close resemblance to existing models of common mental disorders, temperament, and personality pathology. Thus, beyond the description of individual differences in personality disorder, the trait dimensions might provide a framework for the metastructure of psychopathology in the DSM-5 and the integration of a number of ostensibly competing models of personality trait covariation.

Recent editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) conceptualize personality disorders (PDs) as categorical constructs, but high PD co-occurrence suggests underlying latent dimensions. Moreover, several borderline PD criteria resemble Criterion A of the new DSM-5 Section III general criteria for personality pathology (i.e., self and interpersonal dysfunction). We evaluated a bifactor model of PD pathology in which a general factor and several specific factors of personality pathology (PD 'g' and 's' factors, respectively) account for the covariance among PD criteria. In particular, we examined the extent to which the borderline PD criteria would load exclusively onto the g-factor versus on both the g- and one or more s-factors. A large (N = 966) sample of inpatients were interviewed for six DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) PDs using the (Structured Clinical Interview for Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, Williams, & Benjamin, 1994) with no skip-outs. We ran a series of confirmatory, exploratory, and bifactor exploratory factor analyses on the rated PD criteria. The confirmatory analysis largely replicated the DSM PDs, but with high factor correlations. The "standard" exploratory analysis replicated four of the DSM PDs fairly well, but nearly half the criteria cross-loaded. In the bifactor analysis, borderline PD criteria loaded only on the general factor; the remaining PDs loaded either on both the general and a specific factor or largely only on a specific factor. Results are interpreted in the context of several possibilities to define the nature of the general factor.

Shortcomings of approaches to classifying psychopathology based on expert consensus have given rise to contemporary efforts to classify psychopathology quantitatively. In this paper, we review progress in achieving a quantitative and empirical classification of psychopathology. A substantial empirical literature indicates that psychopathology is generally more dimensional than categorical. When the discreteness versus continuity of psychopathology is treated as a research question, as opposed to being decided as a matter of tradition, the evidence clearly supports the hypothesis of continuity. In addition, a related body of literature shows how psychopathology dimensions can be arranged in a hierarchy, ranging from very broad "spectrum level" dimensions, to specific and narrow clusters of symptoms. In this way, a quantitative approach solves the "problem of comorbidity" by explicitly modeling patterns of co-occurrence among signs and symptoms within a detailed and variegated hierarchy of dimensional concepts with direct clinical utility. Indeed, extensive evidence pertaining to the dimensional and hierarchical structure of psychopathology has led to the formation of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) Consortium. This is a group of 70 investigators working together to study empirical classification of psychopathology. In this paper, we describe the aims and current foci of the HiTOP Consortium. These aims pertain to continued research on the empirical organization of psychopathology; the connection between personality and psychopathology; the utility of empirically based psychopathology constructs in both research and the clinic; and the development of novel and comprehensive models and corresponding assessment instruments for psychopathology constructs derived from an empirical approach.

The current study examines the relations among contemporary models of pathological and normal range personality traits. Specifically, we report on (a) conjoint exploratory factor analyses of the Computerized Adaptive Test of Personality Disorder static form (CAT-PD-SF) with the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012) and NEO Personality Inventory-3 First Half (NEI-PI-3FH; McCrae & Costa, 2007), and (b) unfolding hierarchical analyses of the three measures in a large general psychiatric outpatient sample (N = 628; 64% Female). A five-factor solution provided conceptually coherent alignment among the CAT-PD-SF, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3FH scales. Hierarchical solutions suggested that higher-order factors bear strong resemblance to dimensions that emerge from structural models of psychopathology (e.g., Internalizing and Externalizing spectra). These results demonstrate that the CAT-PD-SF adheres to the consensual structure of broad trait domains at the five-factor level. Additionally, patterns of scale loadings further inform questions of structure and bipolarity of facet and domain level constructs. Finally, hierarchical analyses strengthen the argument for using broad dimensions that span normative and pathological functioning to scaffold a quantitatively derived phenotypic structure of psychopathology to orient future research on explanatory, etiological, and maintenance mechanisms.

The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorder Work Group have proposed diagnosing personality disorder based in part on 25 pathological traits. Initial research suggests that five factors explain the covariance among these traits and that these factors reflect the domains of the well-validated Five-Factor Model (FFM) of normative personality. This finding is important because it signifies the potential to apply normative trait research to personality disorder classification in the DSM-5. In this study, trait scale scores on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and domain scores from the FFM Rating Form (FFMRF) were subjected to a conjoint exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to test the higher-order convergence of the DSM-5 pathological trait model and the FFM in a nonclinical sample (N = 808). Results indicate that the five higher-order factors of the conjoint EFA reflect the domains of the FFM. The authors briefly discuss implications of this correspondence between the normative FFM and the pathological PID-5.

Two issues pertinent to the DSM-5 proposal for personality pathology, the recovery of DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs) by proposed DSM-5 traits and the validity of the proposed DSM-5 hybrid model which incorporates both personality pathology symptoms and maladaptive traits, were evaluated in a large undergraduate sample (N = 808). Proposed DSM-5 traits as assessed with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 explained a substantial proportion of variance in DSM-IV PDs as assessed with the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+, and trait indicators of the six proposed DSM-5 PDs were mostly specific to those disorders with some exceptions. Regression analyses support the DSM-5 hybrid model in that pathological traits and an indicator of general personality pathology severity provided incremental information about PDs. Findings are discussed in the context of broader issues around the proposed DSM-5 model of personality disorders.