neurobiology, cross-cultural issues, coverage, and childhood antecedents (Widiger, Simonsen, Krueger, Livesley & Verheul, 2005). One plenary address (Verheul, 2005) focused in particular on the importance of examining clinical utility. In his address, Verheul noted the absence of studies providing information concerning the acceptability of dimensional models to clinicians, their ease of usage, their usefulness for treatment decisions, and other matters of clinical utility. There is a substantial amount of clinical literature providing treatment recommendations for individual personality disorders (e.g., Benjamin, 2002; Beck, Freeman, & Davis, 2003; Oldham, Skodol, & Bender, 2005), but only a few papers and texts regarding the clinical application of dimensional models of classification (e.g., Cloninger & Svrakic, 1999; Livesley, 2001-b; Sanderson & Clarkin, 2002). Some of the more commonly raised objections to replacing the current diagnostic categories with a dimensional model are that clinicians will be largely unfamiliar with the constructs, they will find the dimensional classification to be too complex and cumbersome, and they will be unable to use the dimensions to effectively guide treatment decisions (e.g., Benjamin, 1993; Frances, 1993; Shedler & Westen, 2004). The importance placed on clinical utility by Verheul (2005) was shared by the DSM-5 Research Planning Nomenclature Work Group, who stated that “there is a clear need for dimensional models to be developed and their utility be compared to existing typologies” (Rounsaville et al., 2002, p. 13, our emphasis). Of primary concern to Rounsaville et al. was whether a dimensional model would actually be “acceptable to clinicians” (p. 13).
First and his colleagues (2004) have similarly argued that matters concerning clinical utility should receive more emphasis and attention by the authors of DSM-V. Clinical utility has