NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY NOVEMBER 11, 2019. ATTACHED ARE RESOURCES TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT.

Welch, S. S., & Linehan, M. M. (2002). High-risk situations associated with parasuicide and drug use in borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 561–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi .16.6.561.22141

Winograd, G., Cohen, P., & Chen, H. (2008). Adolescent borderline symptoms in the community: Prognosis for functioning over 20 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 933–941. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01930.x

Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Hennen, J., & Silk, K. R. (2003). The

longitudinal course of borderline psychopathology: 6-year prospective follow-up of the phenomenology of borderline personality disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 274 –283. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.2.274

Zanarini, M. C., Horwood, J., Wolke, D., Waylen, A., Fitzmaurice, G., & Grant, B. F. (2011). Prevalence of DSM–IV borderline personality dis- order in two community samples: 6,330 English 11-year-olds and 34,653 American adults. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 607– 619. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.5.607

Correction to Clark and Ro (2014)

In the article “Three-Pronged Assessment and Diagnosis of Personality Disorder and Its Conse- quences: Personality Functioning, Pathological Traits, and Psychosocial Disability” by Lee Anna Clark and Eunyoe Ro (Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2014, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 55– 69. doi: 10.1037/per0000063), there was an error in the results. Under the subheading, Personality Traits—Functioning Relations, on page 63, the second, third, and fourth paragraph have been revised. Starting from the fourth sentence in the second paragraph the text should read, “The two-factor solution reflected, broadly speaking, Internalizing functioning and traits, including traits marking N/NA versus PA/E and Well being/Positive functioning versus low basic and self functioning (e.g., TCI Harm Avoidance, SIPP Identity, MDPF Non-coping vs. PWB Life-and-Self Satisfaction, SNAP Positive Temperament, WHOQOL Health) for the first factor, and Externalizing traits, including both Disinhibition and Agreeableness/Antagonism (e.g., SNAP Disinhibition vs. TCI Cooperativeness) with only two functioning scales (SIPP Social Concordance and Responsibility) for the second. In the three-factor solution, the second factor of the two-factor solution (primarily trait scales, except for three SIPP interpersonal functioning scales) formed the second factor, whereas the large Internalizing factor split into a bipolar factor with more positive traits (e.g., TCI Persistence, IPIP FFM Altruism) on one end and Interpersonal (Personality) Dysfunction on the other, which formed the third factor, and a first large Internal- izing factor characterized by N/NA and the remaining functioning measures.

In the four-factor solution, clearer factors began to emerge: The first factor was formed from functioning scales marking Well-Being versus Self Pathology and trait scales reflecting N/NA. Functioning scales marking Poor Social/Interpersonal Functioning and trait measures of Agree- ableness and Sociability comprised the second factor. Self-focused traits with a range of disinhibition and positive but unusual perceptivity content (e.g., SNAP Impulsivity, TCI Self- transcendence, respectively) formed the third factor and the basic functioning scales broke off to form the core of the fourth factor along with two “compulsivity” scales (SNAP Workaholism and Propriety) versus positive functioning (e.g., WHOQOL Health). Thus, the first two factors blended functioning and personality-trait scales, whereas the latter two were, respectively, a pure personality-trait factor and a (mostly) functioning factor.

At the five-factor level, the first, second, and fourth factors remained largely the same, whereas the third factor broke into a more focused disinhibition trait factor and another trait factor that was loaded most strongly with two scales each from the previous second and fourth factors that reflected rigidity (e.g., SNAP Propriety) and goal engagement (e.g., TCI Persistence) along with the positive, unusual perceptivity content from the third factor.”

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000103

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

63SHAME, HOSTILITY, IRRITABILITY, AND BPD SYMPTOMS