Characterisation of borderline personality disorders. Comparison of the dimensional ICD-11 model with the categorical classification according to ICD-10 and DSM-5

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

DRKS

Registry ID

DRKS00034884

Enrollment

Registered

2024-09-10

Start date

2024-11-14

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2026-03-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

F60.31

Interventions

Group 1: Patients with borderline personality disorder: two diagnostic interviews (SCID-5-PD

STiP 5.1) and questionnaires (PiCD

PDS-ICD-11

LPFS-BF), as well as questionnaires on construct-related characteristics (e.g. self-harm, suicidality, depression, anxiety, aggression, alexithymia)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

Female

Age

18 Years to 25 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Clinical diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder according to ICD-10 Sufficient understanding of the German language

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Acute psychosis Intellectual impairment

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The aim of the study is to gain new insights into the comparability of the previous categorical diagnosis of borderline personality disorder according to ICD-10 and DSM-5 with the modified approach in ICD-11. Instruments used for the categorical diagnosis of borderline personality disorder according to ICD-10 and DSM-5: - Personality Screening Questionnaire of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5-SPQ) (Beesdo-Baum, Zaudig & Wittchen, 2019) - Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 - Personality Disorders (SKID-5-PD) (Beesdo-Baum, Zaudig & Wittchen, 2019) Instruments used for the dimensional diagnosis of borderline personality disorder according to ICD-11: - Semistructured interview to assess the DSM-5 personality functions (STiP-5.1) (Zettl, Taubner, Hutsebaut & Volkert, 2019) - The Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD) (original version: Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018; German version: Zettl & Volkert, 2019) - ICD-11 Personality Disorder Severity Scale (PDS-ICD-11) (original version: Bach et al., 2021; German version: Zimmermann et al., 2023) - Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF) (Spitzer et al. 2021)	—

Measure

Time frame

The aim of the study is to gain new insights into the comparability of the previous categorical diagnosis of borderline personality disorder according to ICD-10 and DSM-5 with the modified approach in ICD-11. Instruments used for the categorical diagnosis of borderline personality disorder according to ICD-10 and DSM-5: - Personality Screening Questionnaire of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5-SPQ) (Beesdo-Baum, Zaudig & Wittchen, 2019) - Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 - Personality Disorders (SKID-5-PD) (Beesdo-Baum, Zaudig & Wittchen, 2019) Instruments used for the dimensional diagnosis of borderline personality disorder according to ICD-11: - Semistructured interview to assess the DSM-5 personality functions (STiP-5.1) (Zettl, Taubner, Hutsebaut & Volkert, 2019) - The Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD) (original version: Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018; German version: Zettl & Volkert, 2019) - ICD-11 Personality Disorder Severity Scale (PDS-ICD-11) (original version: Bach et al., 2021; German version: Zimmermann et al., 2023) - Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF) (Spitzer et al. 2021)

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Furthermore, we plan to investigate whether a dimensional diagnosis (according to ICD-11) can better predict the expression of construct-related characteristics such as self-harm, number and duration of inpatient stays, empathy, alexithymia, trauma, aggression, depressiveness and anxiety compared to a categorical diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (according to ICD-10). Instruments used to assess construct-related characteristics of borderline personality disorder: - Experimental paradigm for the assessment of proactive aggression (Schleicher, Heßlinger, Jarvers, Ecker, Kandsperger & Brunner, 2023) - Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) (Klinitzke et al., 2012) - State-Trait Anxiety Depression Inventory (STADI) (Laux et al., 2013) - Self Injurious Thoughts and Behaviours Interview (SITBI-G - short form) (Fischer et al., 2014) - Functional Assessment of Self-Mutilation (FASM) (original version: Lloyd et al., 1997) - Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory (DSHI) (Fliege et al., 2006) - Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) (Abler & Kessler, 2009) - Emotion Reactivity Scale (ERS) (original version: Nock et al., 2008; German version: Götz & Kandsperger, 2020) - Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire (PAQ) (original version: Preece et al., 2018; German version: Kaemmerer et al., 2021) - Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) (Herzberg, 2013) - Differential Aggression Questionnaire (DAF) (Petermann & Beckers, 2014) - Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL/6-18R) (Döpfner et al., 2014) and Youth Self-Report (YSR/11-18R) (Döpfner et al., 2014) - The Cognitive, Affective, and Somatic Empathy Scales (CASES) (Schleicher, Jarvers, Raine & Brunner, 2021) - Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) (original version: Raine et al., 2006; german Version: Heynen et al., 2021) - Well-Being Index (WHO-5) (WHO, 1998) - Short Scale for Measuring General Self-efficacy Beliefs (ASKU) (Beierlein et al., 2012) - Parent Version of the Positive and Negative Affect Scale fo	—

Measure

Time frame

Furthermore, we plan to investigate whether a dimensional diagnosis (according to ICD-11) can better predict the expression of construct-related characteristics such as self-harm, number and duration of inpatient stays, empathy, alexithymia, trauma, aggression, depressiveness and anxiety compared to a categorical diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (according to ICD-10). Instruments used to assess construct-related characteristics of borderline personality disorder: - Experimental paradigm for the assessment of proactive aggression (Schleicher, Heßlinger, Jarvers, Ecker, Kandsperger & Brunner, 2023) - Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) (Klinitzke et al., 2012) - State-Trait Anxiety Depression Inventory (STADI) (Laux et al., 2013) - Self Injurious Thoughts and Behaviours Interview (SITBI-G - short form) (Fischer et al., 2014) - Functional Assessment of Self-Mutilation (FASM) (original version: Lloyd et al., 1997) - Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory (DSHI) (Fliege et al., 2006) - Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) (Abler & Kessler, 2009) - Emotion Reactivity Scale (ERS) (original version: Nock et al., 2008; German version: Götz & Kandsperger, 2020) - Perth Alexithymia Questionnaire (PAQ) (original version: Preece et al., 2018; German version: Kaemmerer et al., 2021) - Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) (Herzberg, 2013) - Differential Aggression Questionnaire (DAF) (Petermann & Beckers, 2014) - Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL/6-18R) (Döpfner et al., 2014) and Youth Self-Report (YSR/11-18R) (Döpfner et al., 2014) - The Cognitive, Affective, and Somatic Empathy Scales (CASES) (Schleicher, Jarvers, Raine & Brunner, 2021) - Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) (original version: Raine et al., 2006; german Version: Heynen et al., 2021) - Well-Being Index (WHO-5) (WHO, 1998) - Short Scale for Measuring General Self-efficacy Beliefs (ASKU) (Beierlein et al., 2012) - Parent Version of the Positive and Negative Affect Scale fo

—

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactRomuald Brunner

Lehrstuhl für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und -psychotherapie

romuald.brunner@medbo.de+49 (0) 941 / 941-4139

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Apr 4, 2026