An Object-Relations Based Model For The Assessment of Borderline Psychopathology

An Object-Relations Based
M o d e l fo r t h e A s s e s s m e n t o f
B o rd e r l i n e Ps y c h o p a t h o l o g y
Barry L. Stern, PhDa,*, Eve Caligor, MDa,
Susanne Hörz-Sagstetter, PhDb, John F. Clarkin, PhD
a
KEYWORDS
Psychoanalytic psychotherapy Borderline Borderline personality disorder
Personality organization Assessment
KEY POINTS
The authors describe an object-relations based model drawing on the work of Kernberg
and colleagues for the assessment of borderline pathology.
The substrate of internal object relations that constitutes borderline pathology internally or
structurally is described and a model for assessing such pathology in a clinical interview
format focusing on identity, defensive style, and quality of object relations is presented.
Two clinical examples illustrate how these data can be compiled for purposes of psycho-
dynamic case formulation and decisions about psychodynamic treatment.
Psychodynamic clinicians have long been troubled by the disconnect between the
official psychiatric diagnostic classification codified in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM),1,2 and the underlying, internal characteristics of
disordered personality, our understanding of what is pathologic in personality disor-
ders, and how personality disorders are treated therapeutically. This disconnect has
diminished somewhat in the past several years, with the development of both the
Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM)3,4 and the Alternate Model for Personality
Disorders in Section III of the DSM-5 (AMPD),2 both of which move beyond assess-
ment of symptoms to the acknowledgment of core psychological features of a pa-
tient’s personality, specifically, the patient’s experience of the self and the relation
of that experience to others, that lies at the heart of personality disorders.
Disclosure statement: Work on the STIPO-R, which is a significant focus on this paper, has been
provided by the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the International Psychoanalytic
Association.
a
Columbia University Medical Center, 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 3200, New York, NY 10168,
USA; b Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Am Köllni-
schen Park 2, 10179 Berlin, Germany
* Corresponding author. Columbia University Medical Center, 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 3200,
New York, NY 10168.
E-mail address: [email protected]
Psychiatr Clin N Am 41 (2018) 595–611

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2018.07.007 psych.theclinics.com
0193-953X/18/ª 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en Biblioteca Nacional de Salud y Seguridad Social, BINASSS de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier
en noviembre 15, 2018. Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2018. Elsevier Inc.
Todos los derechos reservados.
596 Stern et al
Abbreviations
BPO Borderline personality organization
STIPO Structured Interview of Personality Organization
The psychodynamic assessment of borderline pathology unfolds in the initial meet-

ings with a patient according to the particular therapist’s frame of reference as well as
the level of acuity with which the patient presents. Along with providing appropriate
containment of affect and assessments of risk and safety, the therapist’s questions
in the initial sessions allow the therapist to develop a map of the patient’s internal
world and how this internal experience in turn fits with the therapist’s model of health
and pathology. Part of this assessment involves the patient’s capacities, for example,
for reflection, interpersonal relatedness, reality testing, coherence of self, impulse con-
trol, and anxiety tolerance, all features related to borderline symptoms as well as dy-
namic conceptions of personality disorder.5,6 The patient’s primary defensive style
can also be ascertained in these initial meetings; is there flexibility and openness, or
clear “no-go” areas of inquiry that would suggest the patient’s need for control and
the operation of splitting-based defenses. An assessment process that conveys at
the outset an interest in the person through which maladaptive behaviors and symp-
toms are expressed, in his or her capacities, proclivities, and defenses, frames a treat-
ment focused on this broader conception of personality, proposing that a better
understanding of this person is intimately related to the success and durability of
the treatment.
Before elaborating further our particular psychodynamic model of personality disor-
der assessment, we need to frame this discussion in the context of a major shift in the
empirical, theoretic, and clinical classification of personality disorders. Criticism of the
DSM’s categorical classification system, for the lack of any empirical support for
distinct personality disorders, for the significant criterion overlap and the associated,
clinically meaningless comorbidity of diagnosis, and for the lack of reliability for individ-
ual personality disorder diagnoses, has been long and well-documented.7–10 Further-
more, the current present or absent, 10-category diagnostic system provides no
information about severity of illness, prognosis, or likely course of treatment. The broad
chorus echoing these complaints, along with scores of empirical studies, has led to a
groundswell of support for a reconceptualization of personality disorder diagnosis
based on a dimensional approach,11–15 a shift that has been expressed to varying de-
grees in the revisions of each of several major diagnostic systems, including the PDM
2,4 the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders in the DSM-5,2 and the still in-
process International Classification of Diseases, 11the edition.11
Despite clear consensus that a shift to dimensional thinking better fits the empirical
data and is more clinically useful, 2 questions remain somewhat less clear: what defi-
nition of personality are we considering when we say “a dimensional approach to per-
sonality assessment” and, then, what specific variables or domains related to
personality health and pathology ought we assess in this dimensional manner? One
definition or conceptual model for personality with a long tradition of empirical
research across cultures involves dispositional traits (ie, The Big Five).16–20 An
approach to personality assessment based on dispositional traits has been lobbied
effectively for inclusion in personality disorder diagnostic systems, in part owing to
their recognizability, replicated links to personality disorders, and biological and evolu-
tionary underpinnings. For many dynamic clinicians, however, an individual’s trait
signature (eg, extraverted, antagonistic, open to experience, self-conscious, vulner-
able) provides little information about the person’s “characteristic adaptations,”21
Psychodynamic Assessment of Borderline Pathology 597
the psychosocial and interpersonal context of the person over time, and his or her mo-
tivations, interests, characteristic tendencies, conflicts, and overall adaptation.
Although the assessment model we elaborate is a specific psychodynamic model of
personality within this latter category of “characteristic adaptations,” and with specific
domains of functioning, surveyed dimensionally, it is notable that both the DSM-5, the
AMPD, and to some extent the PDM 2 are hybrid models in which both dispositional
traits and styles of characteristic adaptation are assessed.
The remainder of this article addresses the question of which specific domains of
adaptation or functioning related to personality we assess, why these particular
domains, and how they are assessed. It is notable that we are speaking of several do-
mains, each sampled dimensionally, and that, taken together, form a full picture of the
individual’s personality functioning, one into which the individual’s symptoms and clin-
ical problems can be contextualized, for example, one’s sense of self over time, sta-
bility versus instability in experience of others, coping and defensive style, aggression
and hostility, and moral functioning. They provide the clinician with both an index of
severity of illness, as well as a sense of the patient’s competence and resiliencies,
all of which help to contextualize the patient’s difficulties in the language of the ther-
apist’s theory of technique, clinical experience, and his or her own personality.
The assessment model that follows is born of the belief that the symptoms of border-
line personality disorder, as well as most of the other personality disorders cataloged in
the DSM IV and 5, share certain core or “structural” features forming a syndrome called
borderline personality organization (BPO). Derived from modern object relations the-
ory,5,6 we conceptualize a personality disorder as a pathology of “internal object rela-
tions,” in which the integration of positively and negatively charged representations of
self and others, required for a realistic and stable sense of self across time and situa-
tions, is not attained. This lack of integration of positive and negative aspects of the self
is referred to as identity diffusion. It is from this internal structure that the various symp-
tomatic expressions of personality disorder in the borderline range (eg, borderline
proper, schizoid, narcissistic, paranoid) derive and that the experience of borderline
symptomatology, at various levels of severity follows.
BORDERLINE PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION AS A PATHOLOGY OF INTERNAL

OBJECT RELATIONS
Of the several features that come to a clinician’s mind when thinking of borderline per-
sonality, problems with identity and splitting as a defensive posture are among the
more prominent and defining. Almost indistinguishable empirically,22–24 identity pa-
thology and splitting-based defenses also work hand-in-glove psychically and
together constitute the core of the internal world of the borderline patient. Splitting-
based defenses such as primitive denial, omnipotent control, idealization/devaluation,
and black-and-white thinking, operate intrapsychically and interpersonally to divide
the full experience of the self, splitting off experiences and representations that are un-
desirable, disturbing, or incongruent with a desired self-image and assigning, or pro-
jecting them, onto others. The result of this process is the internally segmented world
that we term “identity diffused,” meaning that the self is experienced as discontinuous
over time and across situation as different aspects of the self, dissociated from one
another, are experienced in a back-and-forth and abruptly shifting manner. When rep-
resentations of self and other fail to consolidate to form an integrated sense of self and
others, and the good and desirable qualities never touch and thus modulate the bad or
undesirable qualities and vice versa, and the result is a brittle, rigid caricature of a self,
and a correspondingly brittle caricature of others, one lacking in the depth, nuance,
598 Stern et al
and realistic feel of an integrated, healthier personality. This internal split leaves the in-
dividual vulnerable to typical borderline symptoms such as mood lability, idealization/
devaluation, instability, and a lack of coherence in the sense of self, with correspond-
ing difficulties in the steady, realistic experience of others.
ASSESSMENT OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION
Our evaluation approach begins with a discussion of presenting symptomatology

and allows for the determination of both phenomenological (DSM) and structural di-
agnoses. Our approach follows the form and content of Kernberg’s Structural Inter-
view,5 a free-form clinical interview that typically might take 60 to 90 minutes over 1
or 2 evaluation sessions, and that queries all aspects of the patient’s difficulties—
cognitive, emotional, physical, and interpersonal, both their history and current
manifestation. The Structural Interview is typically conceived in 3 phases: an initial
phase focusing on the specific presenting complaint and symptom inquiry, a middle
phase explicitly oriented to the assessment of personality disorder features
and structural diagnosis, and a concluding phase seeking information on the pa-
tient’s family history and current life situation, sharing with the patient a diagnostic
formulation, and outlining a framework for treatment if psychotherapy is indeed
recommended.
The interview begins with an initial probe to the effect of, “Please tell me what prob-
lem or problems bring you here today, any other difficulties—emotional, cognitive, or
physical—that you may have, how you understand your problems, and what you hope
to gain from therapy?” The initial phase focuses in turn on each of the presenting dif-
ficulties identified by the patient, querying their history and the extent of associated
impairment. This initial phase of symptom inquiry constitutes a concurrent mini mental
status examination and initial test of the patient’s personality organization and overall
mental and emotional functioning: Can the patient hold the questions in mind? Are the
responses coherent and logical? Are they realistic, suggesting an appropriate match-
ing of verbal content to emotional valence? And what is the patient’s reflective capac-
ity? Throughout its various stages, the method of the interview itself constitutes an
in vivo test of the patient’s defensive system and reality testing through a focus on
how the patient is functioning in the here-and-now interaction with the interviewer.
Are the patient’s responses open or guarded or evasive, agreeable or defensive or
argumentative, realistic or superficial or caricature-like? The operation of splitting-
based defenses can be discerned in various ways: when we sit with a patient whose
hostility is palpable and by whom we feel controlled during the interview; when, after
an hour of examination we feel confused, as though we have learned nothing of the
patient, where information seems to have no substance or cannot attach to anything
in the clinician’s model of health and pathology. In such cases, it is not the content but
rather interview process itself, our experience and feeling about the same, which sug-
gests the influence of splitting-based defensive operations and the presence of
borderline pathology.
The middle phase of the structural interview serves 2 functions:
1. To elicit information related to the structural diagnosis and the assessment of acuity
within the borderline range, ie, as described, is the patient’s sense of identity unin-
tegrated, supported by splitting-based or “primitive” defenses, or is the internal
structure integrated, and coherent, supported by more adaptive, higher-level de-
fenses; and
2. To inquire more directly around the symptoms of DSM-5 borderline personality
disorder.
In this middle phase of the interview, we further assess the patient’s defensive
system by gauging his or her response to gentle inquiries into contradictions in
his or her responses, contradictions within the verbal report, between the patient’s
verbal report and his or her behavior, and between the patient’s report and collat-
eral information. Does this “confrontation” of discrepant information lead to an in-
crease in hostility, paranoia, and control, or is the patient relaxed in response,
openly providing information that clarifies what had seemed to be contradictory?
Whereas the former suggests the operation of splitting-based defenses leaning to-
ward a borderline diagnosis, the latter suggests some initial guardedness or anxiety
that dissipates, and the associated flexibility and trust associated with greater
openness in the interview.
As we proceed to discuss this middle section of the Structural Interview, the do-
mains of functioning to assess and the specific questions one might ask to clarify a
structural diagnosis, we must note several problems with the Structural Interview
method. First, the ability to conduct the Structural Interview requires significant clinical
tact and skill, coupled with a deep understanding of the structural features of person-
ality disorder. Further, the method suffers from a lack of clinical “reliability”; two theo-
retic interviewers assessing the same theoretic patient would conduct the interview in
the exact same way, and thus might not arrive at the same diagnosis. Further, each
interviewer is subject to biases and blind spots within any given interview (a positive
or negative halo effect, for example) that might lead the interviewer to omit content
essential to determining a BPO diagnosis.
It was with the goal of developing a reliable and valid research tool, as well as the
desire to provide language for clinicians assessing personality disorders in patients,
that we developed the Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO, Cla-
kin, Caligor, Stern, & Kernberg, 2004, unpublished manuscript, Personality Disorders
Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York), an interview that provides
coverage of the content domains sampled in the Structural Interview in a semistruc-
tured interview format familiar to personality disorder researchers. The STIPO has
proved instrumental in our training of medical residents, psychology interns, analytical
candidates, and transference-focused therapy trainees alike, providing language that
operationalizes the structural features of personality disorder. In addition to items that
tap identity and defenses (a spectrum including adaptive and primitive defenses), the
domains central to making a structural diagnosis, the STIPO also assesses quality of
object relations, aggression, and moral values, domains essential for determining the
level of severity within the borderline range.
The items for the original STIPO and its recent revision were drawn from the
experience of clinicians who for years practiced and studied psychodynamic psy-
chotherapy with borderline patients. The original STIPO was tested in 2 separate
clinical samples with empirical results supporting the reliability and validity of the
various domains,22,24 and the more focused, revised interview (Clarkin JF, Caligor
E, Stern B, et al. Structured interview of personality organization-revised [STIPO-
R]. Unpublished manuscript, Personality Disorders Institute, Weill Cornell Medical
College, New York, 2016) which can be found in English online at www.istfp.org/
measures/stipo-r, is also available in German, Italian, Spanish, French, and Turkish
translations. This discussion weaves some of the language of the STIPO-R and its
content domains into our discussion of the middle phase of the more free-form
Structural Interview, during which our task as clinicians is to form a map in our clin-
ical minds of the patient’s sense of self, defensive and relational capacities, and
overall life situation.
600 Stern et al
IDENTITY
Healthy identity is marked by a sense of coherence and continuity in the sense of self
across time and situation, and in a correspondingly stable and coherent representa-
tion of significant others. To allow for a sense of the feel of the STIPO-R interview
items, several sample items that reflect coherence and continuity of the identity
domain are listed.
Consistent sense of self in present
Would you say that you come across like a different person to different people
in your life so that each of them get a different sense of who you are as a
person?
Do you act in ways that appear to others as unpredictable and erratic (.or do
people generally know what to expect from you)?
Sense of self: Intimate relationships
In the course of an intimate relationship (your marriage), or as one begins to
develop, are you afraid of losing a sense of yourself, of what’s important to
you?
Self-esteem: Stability
Would you say that your self-esteem alternates, with you seeing yourself at
times as special or unique, and at other times as small, boring, or defective?
If yes, would you say that the shifts in your self-esteem are quite severe, that
they happen frequently, or that they are upsetting you?
For each item queried in the STIPO-R we typically ask follow-up probes designed to
determine, for affirmative responses, the severity, frequency, and pervasiveness of the
problem across various relationships and/or situations.
Open-ended self-descriptions are also elicited, assessing the patient’s capacity to
provide a coherent, ambivalent (freely accessing and tolerating positive and negative
attributes), realistic, and on balance, positive, description of self that is a hallmark of
consolidated, integrated, identity: “Tell me about yourself, what are you like as a per-
son? Let’s say that you wanted me to get to know you as quickly as possible, in just a
few minutes—how would you describe yourself to me so that I get a live and full of pic-
ture of the kind of person you are?” Our objective in this exercise is to determine
whether the description is realistic and nuanced versus superficial, and integrated
and balanced realistically between positive and negative qualities, or whether the
description tends toward split idealization or devaluation. In assessing the capacity
to form stable, integrated representations of others, we ask the patient to describe
a significant person in his or her life, following this same open-ended format, as well
as specific questions related to the patient’s confidence and stability in his or her
experience of significant others. One can also develop impressions related to narcis-
sistic pathology to the extent that the descriptions of others tends toward excessive
idealization or devaluation, lacks depth and differentiation, and/or is largely self-
referential.
One primary manifestation of a consolidated identity is the ability to direct oneself
effectively, with purpose and pleasure, toward one’s primary role, whether that be ac-
ademic or occupational, and similarly, the capacity to “invest” the self in recreational
pursuits. We ask how effective the patient is in his or her primary role, probing for
grade reports, the ability to meet deadlines, promotions/raises/performance reviews,
and the patient’s subjective sense of effectiveness. We ask about the consistency of
their engagement over time (significant absences, periods when not working), whether
their goals have been consistent or shifting, and whether they experience a sense of
pleasure in doing the work, rather than a mere sense of obligation. We similarly ask
about the presence of significant recreational pursuits with a demonstrated “invest-
ment” in learning or growing their involvement in the activity, probing the consistency
of involvement over time and the sense of pleasure/satisfaction derived from the
activity.
DEFENSES
If we conceive of identity as an ego function that reflects the organization of disparate

internal object relations into either a coherent, integrated stable whole, or a chaotic,
unintegrated and unstable internal world, it is the patient’s defensive style that deter-
mines this quality of identity. During our interview, and in the STIPO-R, we assess
healthy defenses such as suppression, proactive coping, and flexibility to determine
whether they work effectively or in an overly rigid and less adaptive manner. We
also assess the use of splitting-based defenses because these strategies, operating
largely outside conscious awareness, serve to maintain splits in the experience of
the self and others that, were they to break down, would lead to intense anxiety.
Externalization helps patients to maintain largely favorable representations of self by
deflecting responsibility for any adverse experience onto others. Projective identifica-
tion involves the assignment of that which is undesirable in the self to others, while the
patient him or herself is concurrently expressing, either in thought or behavior and at
varying levels of awareness, that very same quality—that is, he or she remains identi-
fied with that undesirable quality, even if only in behavior—while also projecting it. Om-
nipotent control, whether it be through the subtle threat of hostility or otherwise,
operates to shut off areas of uncomfortable dialogue or interaction with others,
including the therapist, whereas idealization/devaluation works to split up the fullness
of the self, dividing good from bad, positive from negative, and splitting these valences
between self and other.
The identification of identity diffusion as described elsewhere in this article, and the
experience or manifestation of primitive defensive operations during the interview con-
firms the diagnosis of BPO. Several factors help to determine the severity and prognosis
for patients in the borderline range. The first of these involves the quality of the patient’s
object relationsa: How isolated is the patient, socially and romantically? What is the
quality of his or her relationships? The second involves aggression, the severity of
aggression or hostility, how frequently expressed or well-controlled it is, and whether
it is directed primarily at the self, others, or both. Last, we assess the patient’s capacity
for concern over his or her actions, the capacity for guilt and remorse, and the extent to
which such feelings provide a check on the patient’s impulsive aggression. The greater
the extent of the aggression, as described, the less concern and remorse related to that
aggression, and the poorer the state of the patient’s interpersonal relationships, the
lower in the BPO spectrum the patient falls, and the poorer the patient’s prognosis in
psychodynamic treatment. Each of these 3 areas is elaborated further.
QUALITY OF OBJECT RELATIONS
This section of the structural interview and STIPO-R involves an assessment of the pa-
tient’s social connectedness, socially and romantically, and the quality of those
a
Object relations refers to both the relation between internal representations of self and other
within the mind, and also to the person’s interpersonal relations, both of which are assessed in the
Quality of Object Relations section of the STIPO-R and the Structural Interview.
602 Stern et al
connections. We ask who the patient’s friends are, assessing both the breadth and
depth of his or her social network. We ask about the duration of close friendships,
the frequency and mode of contact, and the extent of tension and volatility in the
friendship as well as the level of reciprocity, support, and mutual dependency. In terms
of romantic and sexual relationships, we inquire as to the presence of romantic and
sexual partners at the current time and in the recent past, and the duration, depth,
and quality of those relationships: Are they brief, superficial, and volatile or chaotic?
or, are they deep, mutually dependent, reciprocal, loving relationships? We ask about
the patient’s sexual functioning: Do they have sex? With whom? How frequently? and
is the sex in the context of an ongoing relationship or not? Are they satisfied with the
sexual aspect of their relationships? and What do they mean by “satisfied?”
The final section of the Quality of Object Relations domain is termed Investment in
Others, a set of questions that essentially assesses narcissistic object relations.
Among the aspects we assess in this section are the capacity for empathy, the pa-
tient’s attitude toward lending support and nurturance to others, the extent of the pa-
tient’s preoccupation with fairness or equality in relationships, and the tendency
toward boredom in friendships and romantic relationships.
AGGRESSION
The extent of a patient’s aggression, against the self in the form of severe neglect, self-
injury, and suicidality, as well as aggression felt and/or enacted against others, is cen-
tral to the determination of the acuity and treatability of patients in the borderline
range. In the Structural Interview, we inquire as to the number of suicide attempts,
their mode, state of intent, and lethality. We also ask about various modes of self-
injury, their frequency, and severity, because these behaviors need to be contained
in some stable manner for the effective conduct of any dynamic treatment (see, eg,
our writings on treatment contracting in transference-focused therapy).25,26 The
assessment of hostility, resentment, and enacted aggression against others is also
a crucial prognostic factor. In the Structural Interview and STIPO-R, we ask about
the frequency and extent of rage manifest through tantrums and verbal dyscontrol,
as well as tendencies toward physical altercations and assault.
MORAL VALUES
Closely related to the assessment of aggression is the patient’s moral functioning. In

addition to asking about any frank antisocial behaviors, criminal history, and legal
involvement, we also attempt to assess the patient’s capacity for remorse and guilt,
as well as the patient’s capacity for genuine concern for another, and how that
concern might influence his or her aggressive inclinations. When focusing during the
Structural Interview on acts of interpersonal aggression in a patient’s presentation
and history, the interviewer attempts to determine whether that aggression is ego syn-
tonic or dystonic: Does the patient feel entitled to or justified in his or her expressions
of hostility, that the injury to the target is deserved and just, or does the patient express
any regret for such behavior based on a sense that it has violated some internal moral
code or out of concern for the hurt or damage done to another? In the STIPO-R, we are
interested in examples in which the patient behaved in ways that either hurt others,
were patently immoral, or that violated his or her internal moral code. We ask how
the patient felt about his or her behavior, probing for feelings of guilt and/or remorse,
and we ask what the patient did in response to his or her behavior? Did he attempt to
avoid getting caught, avoid the target person, or seek that person out for purposes of
apology and repair?
NARCISSISM
Throughout the structural interview, we pay attention to manifestations of narcissistic

pathology, which often co-occur with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder,27
including features such as grandiosity, the signature feature of narcissistic personality
disorder, and a corresponding devaluation of others, including the interviewer and/or
treatment team; feelings of entitlement; an excessive need for admiration; expressions
of envy; and statements reflecting a preoccupation with one’s social standing (looks,
job status and finances, sexual exploits, etc) and self-esteem. In addition to items in
the content domains described that address features of narcissism (eg, boredom in,
and an economic or quid pro quo view of interpersonal relationships, idealization/
devaluation), the STIPO-R also includes several items specifically related to the
assessment of narcissistic features, including the patient’s need for admiration and re-
action to a withdrawal of attention/admiration, and his or her experience of envy.
THE STRUCTURAL INTERVIEW: CONCLUDING PHASE
Having covered the patient’s presenting problems and conducted a thorough assess-
ment of symptomatology (phase I), and evaluating (by testing, challenging) the pa-
tient’s defensive system while assessing the extent of personality symptoms and
structural features (phase II), the concluding phase of the interview involves a discus-
sion of the patient’s motivation for treatment, of factors that may interfere with the safe
and effective conduct of psychodynamic treatment (assessment of acute danger to
self, and the presence of treatment-interfering behavior), and as well as a discussion
of the patient’s family and personal history as related to current difficulties, recog-
nizing that these are subject to distortions of memory and motivation, but are yet use-
ful as an expression of the patient’s representations of significant others. At the
conclusion of the interview, diagnostic formulations, both structural and phenomeno-
logical, are shared with the patient, along with the outline of a proposed treatment.
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT: CLINICAL VIGNETTES
The evaluation of a patient’s character pathology in clinical settings does not generally
follow a structured protocol such as the STIPO-R. Rather, the therapist’s idiosyncratic
adaptation of the more free form Structural Interview, covering the content domains
outlined herein and perhaps using or informed by the language of the STIPO-R, allows
for the collection of relevant clinical information but in a manner that allows for clinical
flexibility and the building of rapport.28 A thorough evaluation typically requires a min-
imum of 90 minutes; more extended evaluation sessions in some cases are warranted,
allowing for the collection of information from collateral sources (past treaters, family
members) that can then be fed back into the ongoing consultation process when that
information conflicts with the patient’s direct report. Information obtained in this
manner, particularly related to the nature of the patient’s expressed aggression, moral
functioning, and secondary gain, are, again, crucial for determining acuity within the
borderline range, and helping the therapist to ascertain whether a viable treatment
can be established.
These clinical vignettes summarize the results of structural interviews of patients
with 2 different levels of borderline pathology.
Case 1. Shelly
Shelly, a 45-year-old married woman, mother of 2 teenage children, was referred by a
colleague, a cognitive–behavioral therapist whom she had seen for 3 years owing to
604 Stern et al
“anxiety.” The colleague stated that she had “exhausted her bag of tricks,” that is,
strategies to help Shelly calm herself under stress, regulate her emotions, and manage
interpersonal challenges, and that she felt a more dynamic approach might help the
patient to grow further.b The colleague acknowledged that the patient, rather than
becoming more independent and stable as a result of their work, had become increas-
ingly unstable, acute, and unmanageable in recent months, related in part to her use of
the therapist for emotional support outside the treatment sessions, throwing verbal
tantrums and threatening her when she was not sufficiently available or helpful to
her via phone or text.
Shelly was intolerant of the new clinician’s evaluation process, rolling her eyes,
angry and impatient—she wanted to get going already, why did she have to talk about
herself again to someone new??!! She agreed with his impression that her sense of
omnipotence gets activated when her immediate needs are not met, and that others’
needs, including the new clinician’s needs with regard to starting a treatment, should
not matter when the issue of her discomfort or desire is at play. Further, despite her
eagerness, Shelly repeatedly pushed back the clinician’s lines of questioning, his
sense of what was important, and the overall interventional stance of the treatment,
that is, exploratory rather than overtly supportive, protesting that such a treatment
felt like an abandonment, leaving her to “suck it up” on her own. At the end of each
evaluation session, Shelly underscored that she felt unhelped and was reluctant to
leave. Further, upon return to the next session she stressed how difficult the session
had been and how emotionally draining she experienced the days in between our
meetings. Upon inquiry, it was quite difficult for Shelly to articulate the nature of her
upset; instead, she would describe her focus on one thing the clinician had said, or
had not said in the prior session, and how angry the perceived lack of tact or callous
omission made her feel.
In terms of her identity, Shelly demonstrated the capacity to invest herself quite fully
and with pleasure in multiple areas of functioning, including her job as an attorney at
her own boutique law firm, her role as a mother, and 2 serious recreational pursuits
(tennis and choral singing), both of which were activities that she deeply enjoyed, stud-
ied, and had engaged in at a very high level (the latter semiprofessionally), consis-
tently, for many years. Her sense of self in the present was stable, although her
description of self was highly superficial, as was her ability to think in depth about
her emotional states and motivations and those of others. She described herself
largely through the lens of her neediness, and the sense of being the victim of an unjust
world that did not understand or support her. Shelly’s self-esteem was labile, up and
down depending on interpersonal setbacks and disappointments in her recreational
and professional pursuits; she alternated between thinking extremely highly of herself,
and also feeling as though there were things deeply wrong with and lacking in herself.
Shelly displayed the capacity for significant healthy defenses, including her ability to
plan effectively and proactively, and to work to a high standard in many areas of her life
without the tyranny of rigid perfectionism. At the same time, when emotionally
stressed, her capacity for suppression and flexibility were compromised, and
splitting-based defenses became activated. Shelly had a tendency to be rejecting of
support and help when it could not magically solve her problems or discomforts, while
b
The authors frequently have the experience of receiving referrals of this nature, wherein the pa-
tient, consistent with the current climate in psychiatry and mental health treatment, was evaluated
for symptoms and Axis I diagnoses, but not for features of personality disorder. This unfortunate
and all too common experience often leads unnecessarily to years of symptom-chasing treatments
that provide little relief.
concurrently feeling rejected and abandoned by others who failed to meet such an un-
realistic, idealized standard. This tendency toward projective identification was pro-
found, causing considerable tension in her close interpersonal relationships,
including the one with her previous therapist. Externalization was evidenced through
a brittle, unrealistic idealization of the new clinician and the treatment, along with a su-
perficial sense of hopefulness—“I really hope this will work”—a sense devoid of any
personal responsibility or agency for change.
Shelly had a largely good relationship with a quiet, emotionally reserved husband,
whom she experienced as dedicated and loving, but also devalued as ineffectual.
Her description of her best friend was highly idealized and superficial—“She’s the
best. I don’t know..I mean I just love her, our kids grew up together, we’ve shared
so much. I don’t know what to say, she’s always there for me, whatever I need, whe-
never..you know what I mean.. I don’t know what you want.” When asked to elab-
orate further on her friend, she could describe her beauty and intelligence, but little in
terms of an example or story between the 2 of them that could bring any quality of her
friend’s to life. Other friendships were long-standing and durable, with some ups and
downs, but few ruptures. The clinician’s sense was that Shelly was able to maintain
relational stability, but only to a minimal depth and at the price of true intimacy and de-
pendency. The lack of depth and openness with others resulted in a predominance of
superficial relationships, wherein the lack of true intimacy protected her from exposing
her poor self-esteem and tendency to break down under emotional stress, whereupon
she would withdraw into extended periods of angry depression.
Shelly’s hostility was well-controlled. She did not injure herself and took good care
of herself physically. Although she did not lose verbal or physical control with others,
she harbored considerable feelings of resentment toward others whom she felt did not
accord her the respect, attention, or support she deserved. Last, Shelly, had good
moral functioning; there was no evidence of antisocial or exploitive behaviors, and a
clear capacity for guilt and remorse over her actions, an awareness when pressed
that her behaviors and emotional immaturity hurt others, and a tendency to make
reparation to others, particularly her husband and children, after having behaved
poorly.
These were the data the clinician gathered from Shelly over a 90-minute initial ses-
sion, one 45-minute follow-up session, and a brief discussion with the referring ther-
apist. Shelly met the DSM diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder,
characterized by difficulties with her sense of identity, mood lability, feelings of aban-
donment, difficulties with intense anger, tendencies toward idealization or devalua-
tion, and difficulties in her interpersonal relationships. Structurally, Shelly falls within
the range of BPO with prominent narcissistic features, including identification with
both a grandiose and vulnerable self, feelings of entitlement and a tendency toward
devaluing others who do not meet her expectations, and significant difficulties in
her interpersonal relationships characterized by a lack of depth and mutual depen-
dency. The ability to largely control the expression of her hostility and aggression,
and her concern over the same, place Shelly in the high borderline range, and her
motivation for treatment and historical dedication to the same, despite her difficulty
using a more supportive treatment to develop emotionally, suggested that she would
be a good candidate for an exploratory psychodynamic treatment.
Case 2: Mark
At the first meeting, Mark, a 23-year-old college dropout, described the circumstances
of his referral, namely, his dismissal from a therapeutic residential community for
repeated violations of its rules of sexual conduct. His disregard and disdain for the
606 Stern et al
rules, lack of any guilt or remorse, and retributive attacks on the community’s staff and
therapists, including his well-organized attempts to rally other residents against the
staff, resulted in Mark and his hostility coming to be seen as too toxic and destructive
to the community to sustain his residence therein.
Mark detailed his sense of mistreatment by the staff, stating that they were “just all
over me,” for infractions that he felt ridiculous and unhealthy for people whose prob-
lems involve difficulties in relationships: “How ridiculous is that??!! To ban being in a
relationship while being in treatment for difficulties in relationships?” This statement
condenses Mark’s intelligence with his oppositionality and expresses a disingenuous-
ness with highly perverse and destructive elements that left no room to “submitting”
himself to others for his own potential benefit.
Mark described a repeated pattern since his high school years of doing well for brief
periods of time in school before becoming engaged in some dramatic acting out in
which administrators and fellow students were aligned against him. His self-
righteousness and clever arguments left no room for an alternate view of the circum-
stances. When, in the first session, the evaluating clinician confronted him with the fact
that his repeated attempts to “just find a place to learn and share the good I have in-
side with others” had not worked out for him, following a familiar pattern of subversion,
sowing conflict, and eventual dismissal, the clinician was breezily dismissed without a
shred of reflection or remorse. Mark had held several jobs, obtained for him through
connections with his influential family, each of which he had left after brief periods
of time, citing either a lack of interest, a change in life plan, or a good opportunity to
travel that had arisen and to which he “could not say no.” In fact, Mark had demon-
strated no ability to invest in school, work, or recreation, no consistent sense of
what appealed to him, and no track record of consistent engagement or achievement
anywhere.
Mark’s open-ended self-description focused solely on how misunderstood and mis-
treated he was. Said differently, he used the probe of asking him to describe himself as
an opportunity to demonstrate the defense of projective identification, that is, how
others have treated him with a dismissive, uncaring attitude, while demonstrating
that very same dismissive, uncaring attitude toward himself and toward the clinician
during the interview. When prompted to describe further his personality, he provided
positive, idealized adjectives with superficial elaboration, and when confronted with
the ways in which those adjectives contradicted data from collateral sources (the
referring therapist), these were again met with no evidence of reflection but only
with angry disbelief that the clinician would challenge his narrative, and that a view
other than his own might actually have any merit.
Mark described no relationships of any significant duration, and none that were free
of conflict. He described his closest friend as someone he had met at the hospital
several months earlier and with whom he had partied on several occasions since,
meaning, binged for several days on cocaine and alcohol. Many of his male friends
from high school had, for reasons difficult to discern in the interview, dropped out of
touch with him in the ensuing years. Similarly, Mark had never been in a serious
romantic relationship of any duration, or one that was free of chronic conflict and
involved any mutuality or dependency.
Mark’s defensive style was characterized significantly by splitting-based, primitive
defenses, including denial, projective identification, idealization (of self) and devalua-
tion (of others), and omnipotent control. There was no demonstration of adaptive,
higher level defenses, perhaps because Mark had never committed to any circum-
stance wherein such defenses would have been required for success (proactive
coping, flexibility, suppression), or perhaps because he avoided any deeper
professional or academic commitments owing to some awareness that he was not

equipped for the associated challenges to his coping capacities.
The varied expressions of Mark’s aggression was impressive: binge drug and
alcohol use; illegal procurement of sedative medication; impulsive sex with strangers
without protection; gleeful, deliberate revenge against staff who had confronted and
set limits on his behavior and against friends who, in his view, had “betrayed him”;
repeated self-injury; and, finally, his blithe and highly provocative affirmation of his
plan to kill himself by his 26th birthday if he had not completed college and found a
girlfriend. Mark’s discussion of the foregoing was triumphant; he beamed when dis-
cussing it, while completely denying his pleasure in the same when it was pointed
out to him. His lack of concern for himself was demonstrated by the grandiose triumph
of his destructiveness, his proof that it was stronger than anyone’s “therapeutic” or
helpful influence, even stronger than the weakened part of himself that might want a
better life, which he too had vanquished.
In terms of structural diagnosis, Mark would fall in the low borderline range, with a
severe narcissistic personality disorder, demonstrated by his substantial grandiosity,
his complete inability to consider others for their own sake, independent of his needs,
and his thorough use of splitting-based defenses to assign all the negative, weak qual-
ities in himself to others. The severity and pervasiveness of Mark’s perverse aggres-
sion, as well as his complete lack of remorse, accounts for his placement in the low
range of BPO. Mark’s poor prognosis was signaled through his proudly stated
commitment to self-destructiveness and by the sense of pleasure and triumph that
accompanied that.
ALTERNATIVE MODELS
Having outlined in detail our approach to the psychodynamic assessment of person-

ality disorders, it is worthwhile to comment briefly on 2 alternative models to the
assessment of borderline pathology that clinicians will likely encounter.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Although the narrative portions of the personality disorders section of the last 2 ver-
sions of the DSM have discussed difficulties in the sense of self or identity, and diffi-
culties in the realm of self-regulation and interpersonal relationships, these features
have not been systematically included in the diagnostic system proper. Although
the most recent revision of the DSM (the DSM-5)2 did not include major changes to
the official 10-disorder classification system for personality disorders, the AMPD
brings these core features into the actual diagnostic system. Whereas one aspect
of the AMPD involves the assessment of specific maladaptive traits that vary or
combine according to specific personality disorder styles, the criteria also elaborate
“impairment in self and interpersonal functioning,” defined further as difficulties in
the areas of identity and self-direction (self) and empathy and intimacy (interpersonal
relations). Scales have been developed to operationalize both aspects of the AMPD:
The Levels of Personality Functioning Scale for the self and interpersonal functioning
criteria,29–32 for which there has also been developed a diagnostic interview to specif-
ically provide the clinical data to inform a Levels of Personality Functioning Scale
rating33,34; and, for the maladaptive personality traits, the Personality Inventory for
DSM-5,35 for which there is also a significant and growing body of empirical support
(see Refs.36,37 for a recent review). The authors are of the view that these aspects
captured in the AMPD are indeed the domains central to the diagnosis of BPO, the
group of personality disorders characterized structurally, internally, by a pathology
608 Stern et al
of internal object relations described elsewhere in this article in our model of borderline
pathology and assessment.
The Psychiatric Diagnostic Manual
The PDM3 was developed to provide a more clinically meaningful and useful diag-
nostic alternative to the DSM and International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition.
The PDM and its recent revision, the PDM-2, reflect a psychodynamic tradition that
conceptualizes personality disorder in terms of personality traits and styles and also
the psychological functions that underlie healthy/normal and pathologic personality.
The PDM-2 is integrative, with aspects related to personality reflected in all 3 axes
of its diagnostic system for adults, which in combination constitute a multidimensional
approach that describes the patient’s overall functioning, symptoms, psychological
capacities, and modes in which he or she is likely to engage the therapeutic process.
Said differently, the manual attempts to provide a comprehensive and clinically useful
taxonomy of the person, rather than a taxonomy of disorders.
Personality disorder features are folded into 3 axes of the PDM-2. The P axis, of per-
sonality patterns and disorders, is explicitly grounded in the object-relations model
elaborated elsewhere in this article. The focus is on identifying both a level of person-
ality organization (neurotic, borderline, psychotic as elaborated in the work of
Kernberg),5,6 as well as a determination of which personality style best fits the person.
The personality styles are drawn largely from the personality disorders listed in the
DSM 5, but considered less as disorders than prototypic themes or organizing princi-
ples that characterize the person and his or her conflicts, and without a resulting cut-
off for disorder status but rather an impression of the patient’s rigidity, dysfunction,
impairment, and subjective suffering.
The M axis yields a profile of mental functioning that also integrates much of our
thinking as to the structural factors related to the diagnosis of BPO. The M profile as-
sesses psychological capacities in 4 areas:
1. Cognitive and affective processes (eg, ability to communicate and understand,
mentalization, and attentional capacities);
2. Identity and relationships (capacities for differentiation and integration, for relation-
ships and intimacy, and for self-esteem regulation);
3. Defensive style and coping (including impulse control and regulation, primary
defensive style [splitting based vs higher level], and overall adaptation and resil-
iency); and
4. Self-awareness and self-direction (including the capacity for self-observation and
to develop and use an internal moral code).
Finally, the S axis incorporates much of DSM Axis I, with a focus on present symp-
tomatology, with a recognition that individual with similar symptoms patters may pre-
sent in different ways and with differing degrees of subjective distress and impairment
owing to the nature of their person (Axes P and M). Although integrative and clinically
rich, the PDM-2 does not provide a categorical diagnosis of any personality disorder.
Methods for organizing the PDM-2 data are currently under development and investi-
gation (see the Psychodiagnostic Chart38), and these will in time speak to the useful-
ness of PDM-2 formulations in clinical settings and discussions of subtypes of patients
on dimensions of personality.
SUMMARY
The landscape of personality disorder assessment is experiencing a generational shift.

The move from a categorical diagnostic system to one combining a trait focus with a
concurrent focus on capacities and tendencies related to the experience of the self,
and the self in relation to others, is monumental. This shift promises to lend greater val-
idity to personality disorder diagnostics and to yield a diagnostic language that is of
greater usefulness to clinicians, who must determine the nature and severity of an in-
dividual’s pathology, as well as that individual’s suitability for treatment.
REFERENCES
1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders. 4th edition. Washington, DC: Author; 2000. text rev.
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders. 5th edition. Washington, DC: Author; 2013.
3. PDM Task Force. Psychodynamic diagnostic manual. Silver Spring (MD): Alliance
of Psychoanalytic Organizations; 2006.
4. Lingiardi V, McWilliams N. Psychodynamic diagnostic manual, version 2 (PDM-2).
New York: Guilford Press; 2017.
5. Kernberg OF. Severe personality disorders. New Haven (CT): Yale; 1984.
6. Kernberg OF, Caligor E. A psychoanalytic theory of personality disorders. In:
Lenzenweger M, Clarkin J, editors. Major theories of personality disorder. New
York: Guilford; 2005.
7. Trull T, Durrett C. Categorical and dimensional models of personality disorder.
Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2005;1:355–80.
8. Verheul R. Clinical utility of dimensional models for personality pathology. In:
Widiger TA, Simonsen E, Sirovatka PJ, et al, editors. Dimensional models of per-
sonality disorders: refining the research agenda for DSM-V, 203-218. Washington,
DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2006.
9. Westen D, Arkowitz-Westen L. Limitations of Axis II in diagnosing personality pa-
thology in clinical practice. Am J Psychiatry 1998;155:1767–71.
10. Widiger T, Samuel DB. Evidence-based assessment of personality disorders.
Psychol Assess 2005;17(3):278–87.
11. Hopwood CJ, Kotov R, Krueger RF, et al. The time has come for dimensional per-
sonality disorder diagnosis. Personal Ment Health 2018;12:82–6.
12. Krueger RF, Markon KE. The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving
toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality
and psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2014;10:477–501.
13. Markon K, Kreuger RF, Watson D. Delineating the structure of normal and
abnormal personality: an integrative hierarchical approach. J Pers Soc Psychol
2005;88(1):139–57.
14. Morey LC, Hopwood CJ, Gunderson JG, et al. Comparison of alternative models
for personality disorders. Psych Medicine 2007;37(3):983–94.
15. Widiger TA, Livesley WJ, Clark LA. An integrative dimensional classification of
personality disorder, Psychological assessment 2009;21(3):243–55.
16. Costa PT, Widiger TA, editors. Personality disorders and the five factor model of
personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1994.
17. Digman JM. Higher-order factors of the big five. J Pers Soc Psychol 1997;73:
1246–56.
18. John OP. The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In: Pervin LA, editor. Handbook of personality:
theory and research. New York: Guilford; 1990. p. 66–100.
610 Stern et al
19. McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. Toward a new generation of personality theories: theoret-
ical contexts for the five-factor model. In: Wiggins JS, editor. The five-factor model
of personality: theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford; 1996. p. 51–87.
20. Widiger TA, Trull TJ. Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder:
shifting to a dimensional model. Am Psychol 2007;62:71–83.
21. McAdams DP, Pals JL. A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative
science of personality. American Psychologist 2006;61(3):204–17.
22. Doering S, Burgmer M, Heuft G, et al. Reliability and validity of the German
version of the Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO). BMC Psy-
chiatry 2013;13:210.
23. Lenzenweger MF, Clarkin JF, Kernberg OF, et al. The Inventory of Personality Or-
ganization: psychometric properties, factorial composition, and criterion relations
with affect, aggressive dyscontrol, psychosis proneness, and self-domains in a
nonclinical sample. Psychol Assess 2001;13:577–91.
24. Stern B, Caligor E, Clarkin JF, et al. The Structured Interview of Personality Orga-
nization (STIPO): preliminary psychometrics in a clinical sample. J Pers Assess
2010;91:35–44.
25. Yeomans FE, Clarkin JF, Kernberg OF. Transference-focused psychotherapy for
borderline personality disorder: a clinical guide. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chiatric Publishing; 2015.
26. Yeomans FE, Delaney J, Levy K. Behavior action in TFP: the role of the treatment
contract in transference-focused psychotherapy. Psychotherapy 2017;54(3):
260–6.
27. Diamond D, Levy K, Clarkin J, et al. Attachment and mentalization in female pa-
tients with comorbid narcissistic and borderline personality disorder. Personal
Disord 2014;5:428–33.
28. Hörz-Sagstetter S, Caligor E, Preti E, et al. Clinician-guided assessment of per-
sonality using the structural interview and the Structured Interview of Personality
Organization (STIPO). J Pers Assess 2018;100:30–42.
29. Bender DS, Morey LC, Skodol A. Towards a model for assessing level of person-
ality functioning in DSM-5, Part I: a review of theory and methods. J Pers Assess
2011;93(4):332–46.
30. Hutsebaut J, Feenstra DJ, Kamphuis JH. Development and preliminary psycho-
metric evaluation of a brief self-report questionnaire for the assessment of the
DSM-5 level of personality functioning scale: the LPFS Brief Form (LPFS-BF). Per-
sonal Disord 2016;7(2):192–7.
31. Morey LC, Berghuis H, Bender DS, et al. Towards a model for assessing level of
personality functioning in DSM-5, Part II: empirical articulation of a core dimen-
sion of personality pathology. J Pers Assess 2011;93(4):347–53.
32. Rockland LH. Supportive therapy for borderline patients: a psychodynamic
approach. New York: Guilford; 1992.
33. Bender DS, Skodol AE, First MB, et al. Module I: structured clinical interview for the
level of personality functioning scale. In: First MB, Skodol AE, Bender DS, et al, ed-
itors. Structured clinical interview for the DSM-5 alternative model for personality
disorders (SCID-AMPD). New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute; 2016.
34. Hutsebaut J, Kamphuis JH, Feenstra DJ, et al. Assessing DSM–5-oriented level of
personality functioning: development and psychometric evaluation of the Semi-
Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM–5 (STiP-5.1). Personal Dis-
ord 2017;8(1):94–101.
35. Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, et al. Initial construction of a maladaptive
personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med 2012;42:1879–90.
36. Al-Dajani N, Gralnick TM, Bagby RM. A psychometric review of the Personality
Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): current status and future directions. J Pers Assess
2016;98(1):62–81.
37. Bagby, 2016.
38. Gordon RM, Bornstein RF. Construct validity of the psychodiagnostic chart: a
transdiagnostic measure of personality organization, personality syndromes,
mental functioning, and symptomatology. Psychoanal Psychol 2017. https://doi.
org/10.1037/pap0000142.

An Object-Relations Based Model For The Assessment of Borderline Psychopathology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Object-Relations Based Model For The Assessment of Borderline Psychopathology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Object-Relations Based Model For The Assessment of Borderline Psychopathology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main focus of the document?

What is the main focus of the document?

What model is described for assessing borderline pathology?

What model is described for assessing borderline pathology?

An Object-Relations Based

Psychiatr Clin N Am 41 (2018) 595–611

The psychodynamic assessment of borderline pathology unfolds in the initial meet-

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION AS A PATHOLOGY OF INTERNAL

ASSESSMENT OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION

Our evaluation approach begins with a discussion of presenting symptomatology

If we conceive of identity as an ego function that reflects the organization of disparate

QUALITY OF OBJECT RELATIONS

Closely related to the assessment of aggression is the patient’s moral functioning. In

Throughout the structural interview, we pay attention to manifestations of narcissistic

THE STRUCTURAL INTERVIEW: CONCLUDING PHASE

STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT: CLINICAL VIGNETTES

professional or academic commitments owing to some awareness that he was not

Having outlined in detail our approach to the psychodynamic assessment of person-

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

The landscape of personality disorder assessment is experiencing a generational shift.

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

You might also like