The alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) has gained widespread recognition, yet the extent of overlap between personality functioning, maladaptive traits, and normal-range traits—and its implications for clinical practice—remains debated. Existing evidence is largely based on cross-sectional designs and Western convenience samples. In this registered report, we tested 11 preregistered hypotheses examining associations and distinctions among personality functioning, normal-range traits, and maladaptive traits in two Chinese offender samples (Sample 1: N = 1,395; Sample 2: N = 1,017) using four waves of data collected over 1 year. Results revealed notable differences in the distributions and longitudinal properties of personality functioning and traits. Moreover, maladaptive traits were partly jointly predicted by personality functioning and normal-range traits. With this study, we provide the most comprehensive longitudinal test to date of similarities and differences between personality functioning and traits and extend the AMPD literature to a non-Western offender population in which personality assessment may be particularly informative.
BagbyR. M.KeeleyJ. W.WilliamsC. C.MortezaeiA.RyderA. G.SellbomM. (2022). Evaluating the measurement invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in Black Americans and White Americans. Psychological Assessment, 34(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001085
3.
Barchi-Ferreira BelA. M.OsórioF. L. (2020). The personality inventory for DSM-5: Psychometric evidence of validity and reliability-updates. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 28(4), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000261
4.
BarrettB.ByfordS. (2012). Costs and outcomes of an intervention programme for offenders with personality disorders. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(4), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.109.068643
5.
BastiaansenL.HopwoodC. J.van den BroeckJ.RossiG.SchotteC.de FruytF. (2016). The twofold diagnosis of personality disorder: How do personality dysfunction and pathological traits increment each other at successive levels of the trait hierarchy?Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(3), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000149
6.
BenderD. S.MoreyL. C.SkodolA. E. (2011). Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM–5, Part 1: A review of theory and methods. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(4), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.583808
7.
BleidornW.SchwabaT.ZhengA.HopwoodC. J.SosaS. S.RobertsB. W.BrileyD. A. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 148(7–8), 588–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365
8.
BozzatelloP.BluaC.BrandelleroD.BaldassarriL.BrassoC.RoccaP.BellinoS. (2024). Gender differences in borderline personality disorder: A narrative review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, Article 1320546. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1320546
9.
BühlerJ. L.OrthU.BleidornW.WeberE.KretzschmarA.SchelingL.HopwoodC. J. (2024). Life events and personality change: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 38(3), 544–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231190219
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
12.
ChengC.LiP.WangM.SuiW.WangJ. (2025). Reliability and validity testing and network analysis of the Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 in Chinese college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 107(6), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2025.2509496
13.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
14.
ClarkL. A.RoE. (2014). Three-pronged assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder and its consequences: Personality functioning, pathological traits, and psychosocial disability. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000063
15.
ClarkL. A.WatsonD. (2022). The trait model of the DSM–5 alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD): A structural review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(4), 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000568
16.
CorneilleO.GawronskiB. (2024). Self-reports are better measurement instruments than implicit measures. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(12), 835–846. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00376-z
17.
CummingG. (2009). Inference by eye: Reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Statistics in Medicine, 28(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3471
EmeryL. T.EvansC. M.DimitrovaJ.O’KeefeC.SimmsL. J. (2024). Understanding the association between normal and maladaptive personality traits: Replication and extension of Morey et al. (2020). Journal of Personality, 92(5), 1477–1491. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12904
21.
FewL. R.MillerJ. D.RothbaumA. O.MellerS.MaplesJ.TerryD. P.CollinsB.MacKillopJ. (2013). Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(4), 1057–1069. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034878
22.
GomezR.WatsonS.BrownT.StavropoulosV. (2023). Personality Inventory for DSM–5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF): Measurement invariance across men and women. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 14(3), 334–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000569
23.
HaehnerP.BueckerS.AltorferM.BockletV.BleidornW. (2024). Do people become more alike across the lifespan? A meta-analysis of changes in the variability of personality traits. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yk3eh
24.
HaehnerP.SleepC. E.MillerJ. D.LynamD. R.HopwoodC. J. (2024). The longitudinal (co)development of personality traits and the level of personality functioning after negative life events. Clinical Psychological Science, 12(4), 782–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026231197607
HopwoodC. J. (2022). The DSM should replace maladaptive traits with the five-factor model: Comment on Clark and Watson (2022). Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(4), 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000571
27.
HopwoodC. J. (2025). Personality functioning, problems in living, and personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 107(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2024.2345880
28.
HopwoodC. J.Aafjes-van DoornK.BékésV.LuoX.RingwaldW. R.WrightA. G. C. (2025). Is psychological research producing the kind of knowledge clinicians find useful?American Psychologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001538
29.
HopwoodC. J.BleidornW.WrightA. G. C. (2022). Connecting theory to methods in longitudinal research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(3), 884–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211008407
30.
HopwoodC. J.DonnellanM. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310361240
31.
HopwoodC. J.MoreyL. C.EdelenM. O.SheaM. T.GriloC. M.SanislowC. A.McGlashanT. H.DaversaM. T.GundersonJ. G.ZanariniM. C.MarkowitzJ. C.SkodolA. E. (2008). A comparison of interview and self-report methods for the assessment of borderline personality disorder criteria. Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-359.2.1.81
32.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). The Guilford Press.
33.
JosephN.BenefieldN. (2012). A joint offender personality disorder pathway strategy: An outline summary. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 22(3), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.1835
KendlerK. S.AggenS. H.GillespieN.KruegerR. F.CzajkowskiN.YstromE.Reichborn-KjennerudT. (2019). The structure of genetic and environmental influences on normative personality, abnormal personality traits, and personality disorder symptoms. Psychological Medicine, 49(8), 1392–1399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291719000047
36.
KielL.HopwoodC. J.LindM. (2024). Changes in personality functioning and pathological personality traits as a function of treatment: A feasibility study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 46, 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-024-10138-z
37.
KievitR. A.BrandmaierA. M.ZieglerG.van HarmelenA.-L.de MooijS. M. M.MoutoussisM.GoodyerI. M.BullmoreE.JonesP. B.FonagyP.LindenbergerU.DolanR. J., & NSPN Consortium. (2018). Developmental cognitive neuroscience using latent change score models: A tutorial and applications. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 33, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.11.007
38.
KormosC.GiffordR. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
39.
KruegerR. F.DerringerJ.MarkonK. E.WatsonD.SkodolA. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42(9), 1879–1890. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674
40.
KruegerR. F.DerringerJ.MarkonK. E.WatsonD.SkodolA. E. (2013). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5—Brief Form (PID-5-BF)—Adult. American Psychiatric Association.
41.
KvarsteinE. H.FrøyhaugM.PettersenM. S.CarlsenS.EkbergA.Fjermestad-NollJ.UlvestadD. A.GiklingE. L.HjermannE.LindbergetK.OmvikS.EikenæsI. U.HummelenB.MorkenK. T. E.WilbergT.PedersenG. A. (2023). Improvement of personality functioning among people treated within personality disorder mental health services. A longitudinal, observational study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, Article 1163347. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1163347
42.
LauS. C. L.SellbomM.BagbyR. M. (2024). An examination of the cross-cultural equivalence of the personality inventory for DSM-5 across Chinese and U.S. samples. Psychological Assessment, 36(2), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001293
43.
LawsonK. M.RobinsR. W. (2021). Sibling constructs: What are they, why do they matter, and how should you handle them?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 344–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211047101
44.
LittleT. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Methodology in the social sciences. The Guilford Press.
45.
LiuJ. D.YouR. H.LiuH.ChungP. K. (2020). Chinese version of the international positive and negative affect schedule short form: Factor structure and measurement invariance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18, Article 285. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01526-6
46.
LiuY.HopwoodC. J.PincusA. L.ZhouB.YangJ.BaiS.YangB. (2025). Interpersonal problem profiles of personality and psychopathology constructs in Chinese undergraduates and offenders. Assessment, 32(2), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241241495
47.
McCabeG. A.OltmannsJ. R.WidigerT. A. (2021). Criterion A scales: Convergent, discriminant, and structural relationships. Assessment, 28(3), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120947160
48.
McIntyreH. H. (2010). Gender differences in the nature and linkage of higher-order personality factors to trait and ability emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5), 617–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.12.019
49.
MikeA.KingH.OltmannsT. F.JacksonJ. J. (2018). Obsessive, compulsive, and conscientious? The relationship between OCPD and personality traits. Journal of Personality, 86(6), 952–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12368
50.
MoreyL. C.BerghuisH.BenderD. S.VerheulR.KruegerR. F.SkodolA. E. (2011). Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM–5, Part II: Empirical articulation of a core dimension of personality pathology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(4), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.577853
51.
MoreyL. C.GoodE. W.HopwoodC. J. (2022). Global personality dysfunction and the relationship of pathological and normal trait domains in the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders. Journal of Personality, 90(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12560
MoreyL. C.McCredieM. N.BenderD. S.SkodolA. E. (2022). Criterion A: Level of personality functioning in the alternative DSM–5 model for personality disorders. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(4), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000551
54.
NaginD.PaternosterR. (2000). Population heterogeneity and state dependence: State of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(2), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007502804941
55.
OltmannsJ. R.WidigerT. A. (2016). Self-pathology, the five-factor model, and bloated specific factors: A cautionary tale. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(3), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000144
56.
PutkonenH.KomulainenE. J.VirkkunenM.EronenM.LönnqvistJ. (2003). Risk of repeat offending among violent female offenders with psychotic and personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(5), 947–951. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.16.5.947
57.
Reichborn-KjennerudT.KruegerR. F.YstromE.TorvikF. A.RosenströmT. H.AggenS. H.SouthS. C.NealeM. C.KnudsenG. P.KendlerK. S.CzajkowskiN. O. (2017). Do DSM-5 Section II personality disorders and Section III personality trait domains reflect the same genetic and environmental risk factors?Psychological Medicine, 47(12), 2205–2215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000824
58.
RocheM. J.JaweedS. (2023). Comparing measures of Criterion A to better understand incremental validity in the alternative model of personality disorders. Assessment, 30(3), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211059763
59.
SamuelD. B.WidigerT. A. (2011). Conscientiousness and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2(3), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021216
60.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In von EyeA.CloggC. C. (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Sage.
61.
SchwabaT.BleidornW. (2018). Individual differences in personality change across the adult life span. Journal of Personality, 86(3), 450–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12327
62.
SharpC.ClarkL. A.BalzenK. M.WidigerT.SteppS.ZimmermanM.KruegerR. F. (2025). The validity, reliability and clinical utility of the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders (AMPD) according to DSM-5 revision criteria. World Psychiatry, 24(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21339
63.
SharpC.WallK. (2021). DSM-5 level of personality functioning: Refocusing personality disorder on what it means to be human. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-105402
64.
SilberschmidtA.LeeS.ZanariniM.SchulzS. C. (2015). Gender differences in borderline personality disorder: Results from a multinational, clinical trial sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(6), 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_175
65.
SimmsL. J.GoldbergL. R.RobertsJ. E.WatsonD.WelteJ.RottermanJ. H. (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: Introducing the CAT–PD project. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(4), 380–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.577475
66.
SleepC. E.LynamD. R.WidigerT. A.CroweM. L.MillerJ. D. (2019). An evaluation of DSM-5 Section III personality disorder Criterion A (impairment) in accounting for psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 31(10), 1181–1191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000620
67.
SleepC. E.WeissB.LynamD. R.MillerJ. D. (2020). The DSM-5 section III personality disorder criterion a in relation to both pathological and general personality traits. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 11(3), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000383
68.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.02.004
69.
SuzukiT.GriffinS. A.SamuelD. B. (2017). Capturing the DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits in the five-factor model’s nomological net. Journal of Personality, 85(2), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12235
70.
SuzukiT.SamuelD. B.PahlenS.KruegerR. F. (2015). DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: An item-response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000035
71.
ThompsonE. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301
72.
VergauweJ.RoucoV.FranssensR.ClaesL.BastiaensT.De ClercqB. (2023). Age and sex differences of the PID-5-100 maladaptive personality traits throughout adulthood. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 14(5), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000622
73.
WeekersL. C.HutsebautJ.KamphuisJ. H. (2019). The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: Update of a brief instrument for assessing level of personality functioning. Personality and Mental Health, 13(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1434
74.
WeekersL. C.HutsebautJ.RoversJ. M. C.KamphuisJ. H. (2024). Head-to-head comparison of the alternative model for personality disorders and Section II personality disorder model in terms of predicting patient outcomes 1 year later. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 15(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000637
75.
WeisbergY. J.DeYoungC. G.HirshJ. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the big five. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178
76.
WidigerT. A.CostaP. T. (2012). Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: The five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 80(6), 1471–1506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00776.x
77.
WidigerT. A.McCabeG. A. (2020). The alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) from the perspective of the five-factor model. Psychopathology, 53(3–4), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507378
78.
WilliamsT. F.SimmsL. J. (2018). Personality traits and maladaptivity: Unipolarity versus bipolarity. Journal of Personality, 86(5), 888–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12363
79.
WrightA. G. C.HopwoodC. J.SkodolA. E.MoreyL. C. (2016). Longitudinal validation of general and specific structural features of personality pathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(8), 1120–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000165
80.
WrightA. J.LuhmannM.SalzburgS.KossM.HaehnerP. (2026). A multimetric examination of self-reported personality functioning and personality trait development. Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science, 135(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0001055
81.
XuZ.RüschN.HuangF.KöstersM. (2017). Challenging mental health related stigma in China: Systematic review and meta-analysis. I. Interventions among the general public. Psychiatry Research, 255, 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.008
82.
ZhangB.LiY. M.LiJ.LuoJ.YeY. H.YinL.ChenZ. S.SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2022). The Big Five Inventory-2 in China: A comprehensive psychometric evaluation in four diverse samples. Assessment, 29(6), 1262–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211008245
83.
ZhangW. J.WangM. C.YuM.WangJ. P. (2022). The hierarchical structure and predictive validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in Chinese nonclinical adolescents. Assessment, 29(7), 1559–1575. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211022835
84.
ZimmermannJ.BöhnkeJ. R.EschstruthR.MathewsA.WenzelK.LeisingD. (2015). The latent structure of personality functioning: Investigating criterion a from the alternative model for personality disorders in DSM-5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(3), 532–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000059
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
