Decades of research on the dimensional nature of personality disorder have led to the replacement of categorical personality disorder diagnoses by a dimensional assessment of personality disorder severity (PDS) in ICD-11, which essentially corresponds to personality functioning in the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. Besides advancing the focus in the diagnosis of PD on impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning, this shift also urges clinicians and researchers worldwide to get familiar with new diagnostic approaches.

This study investigated which PDS dimensions among different assessment methods and conceptualisations have the most predictive value for overall PDS.

Using semi-structured interviews and self-reports of personality functioning, personality organisation and personality structure in clinical samples of different settings in Switzerland and Germany (n = 534), we calculated a latent general factor for PDS (g-PDS) by applying a correlated trait correlated (method – 1) model (CTC(M–1)).

Our results showed that four interview-assessed PDS dimensions: defence mechanisms, desire and capacity for closeness, sense of self, and comprehension and appreciation of others’ experiences and motivations account for 91.1% of variance of g-PDS, with a combination of either two of these four dimensions already explaining between 81.8 and 91.3%. Regarding self-reports, the dimensions depth and duration of connections, self-perception, object perception and attachment capacity to internal objects predicted 61.3% of the variance of a latent interview-based score, with all investigated self-reported dimensions together adding up to 65.2% variance explanation.

Taken together, our data suggest that focusing on specific dimensions, such as intimacy and identity, in time-limited settings might be viable in determining PDS efficiently.

We investigated work-related exposure to stressful and traumatic events in police officers, including repeated exposure to traumatic materials, and predicted that ICD-11 complex PTSD (CPTSD) would be more prevalent than posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The effects of demographic variables on exposure and PTSD were examined, along with whether specific types of exposure were uniquely associated with PTSD or CPTSD.

An online survey covering issues about trauma management, wellbeing and working conditions was disseminated via social media and official policing channels throughout the UK. In total, 10 401 serving police officers self-identified as having been exposed to traumatic events. Measurement of PTSD and CPTSD utilised the International Trauma Questionnaire.

The prevalence of PTSD was 8.0% and of CPTSD was 12.6%. All exposures were associated with PTSD and CPTSD in bivariate analyses. Logistic regression indicated that both disorders were more common in male officers, and were associated independently with frequent exposure to traumatic incidents and traumatic visual material, and with exposure to humiliating behaviours and sexual harassment, but not to verbal abuse, threats or physical violence. Compared to PTSD, CPTSD was associated with exposure to humiliating behaviours and sexual harassment, and also with lower rank and more years of service.

CPTSD was more common than PTSD in police officers, and the data supported a cumulative burden model of CPTSD. The inclusion in DSM-5 Criterion A of work-related exposure to traumatic materials was validated for the first time. Levels of PTSD and CPTSD mandate enhanced occupational mental health services.