Level of Personality Functioning Scale–Brief Form 2.0: Utility in Capturing Personality Problems in Psychiatric Outpatients and Incarcerated Addicts

ABSTRACT

This study examined the utility of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale–Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS–BF 2.0) in measuring features corresponding to self–other impairment of personality functioning as defined in the new general diagnostic guidelines for Personality Disorder in DSM-5 Section III and ICD-11. A mixed clinical sample (N = 228) composed of 121 psychiatric outpatients and 107 incarcerated addicts was administered the LPFS–BF 2.0, World Health Organization Wellbeing Index (WHO–5), Symptom Checklist–90–Revised (SCL–90–R), Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5), and the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI). The LPFS–BF 2.0 yielded two latent components that correspond to an interpretation of self- and interpersonal functioning, and showed relevant associations with severity indexes, well-being, dysfunctional schema modes, and lack of healthy functioning modes. The LPFS–BF 2.0 also demonstrated incremental prediction of reduced healthy adult functioning, fulfillment, and well-being over and above the total PID–5 trait score, although this did not apply to dysregulated anger and overcompensatory coping. Taken together, the LPFS–BF 2.0 is a psychometrically satisfactory instrument that generally captures theoretically expected self–other features of personality dysfunctioning, in particular lack of healthy functioning and fulfillment but to a lesser degree overcompensatory and antagonistic features. Findings warrant replication in different clinical and forensic populations.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Erik Simonsen and Mickey Kongerslev from the Center of Excellence on Personality Disorder, Psychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand; Sebastian Simonsen for valuable contributions to the Danish translation of LPFS–BF 2.0; and the patients, inmates, and staff at the Psychiatric Clinic Slagelse and Sdr. Omme Prison.

Notes

¹ Various studies have used different measures of the LPFS or related constructs; accordingly, measures of LPFS or functioning and impairment should not be equated with the LPFS per se.

² We did not record detailed diagnostic characteristics for all participants in this study. Instead we refer to detailed diagnostic characteristics for consecutively admitted patients in this particular clinical setting, which are reported elsewhere (Bach & Fjeldsted, 2017). Additionally, we refer to the self-reported characteristics in Table 2 and Table S1.

³ Correlations with PID–5 domains and facets are provided in Table S3.