DIMENSIONAL TRAITS AND PERSONALITY DISORDERS DIMENSIONAL PERSONALITY TRAITS AND THE PREDICTION OF DSM–IV PERSONALITY DISORDER SYMPTOM COUNTS IN A NONCLINICAL SAMPLE (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2001
This study sought to extend previous work on the five-factor dimensional model (FFM) of personality disorder (PD) by developing more comprehensive FFM descriptions of prototypic cases. Specifically, the authors asked experts in each of the 10 DSM-IV PDs to rate the prototypic case by using all 30 facets of the FFM. Aggregating across raters of the given disorder generated a prototype for each disorder. In general, there was good agreement among experts and with previous theoretical and empirical FFM translations of DSM diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, the ability of the FFM explanation to reproduce the high comorbidity rates among PDs was demonstrated. The authors concluded that, with the possible exception of schizotypal PD, the DSM PDs can be understood from the dimensional perspective of the FFM. Future directions for research, including the use of the present prototypes to "diagnose" personality disorder, are discussed. The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual'of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), provides personality disorder diagnostic categories. There is good evidence that these diagnoses identify clinically meaningful maladaptive personality traits; several diagnoses seem especially well-validated, including antisocial (
A Simplified Technique for Scoring DSM-IV Personality Disorders With the Five-Factor Model
The current study compares the use of two alternative methodologies for using the Five-Factor Model (FFM) to assess personality disorders (PDs). Across two clinical samples, a technique using the simple sum of selected FFM facets is compared with a previously used prototype matching technique. The results demonstrate that the more easily calculated counts perform as well as the similarity scores that are generated by the prototype matching technique. Optimal diagnostic thresholds for the FFM PD counts are computed for identifying patients who meet diagnostic criteria for a specific PD. These threshold scores demonstrate good sensitivity in receiver operating characteristics analyses, suggesting their usefulness for screening purposes. Given the ease of this scoring procedure, the FFM count technique has obvious clinical utility.
Psychometric Investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5)
PsycEXTRA Dataset, 2000
A Psychometric Investigation of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders Thesis directed by Professor Frederick L. Coolidge With the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), a new approach to diagnosing personality disorders was offered in Section III (Emerging Measures), entitled "Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders". The present study examined 25 psychopathological personality disorder facets, as presented in Section III, in regard to their predictive ability of individual personality disorders in a sample of 217 university students. Two established personality disorder instruments were used: the Coolidge Axis II Inventory (CATI; Coolidge, 2000) and the Personal Belief Questionnaire (PBQ; Beck, & Beck, 1991). The 25 personality disorder facets (Section III) were measured by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) and via a newly derived set of 25 personality facet scales (Wekamp, 2013) from the CATI.
A PSYCHOMETRIC INVESTIGATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE DSM-5 MODEL FOR PERSONALITY DISORDERS
A Psychometric Investigation of the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders Thesis directed by Professor Frederick L. Coolidge With the publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), a new approach to diagnosing personality disorders was offered in Section III (Emerging Measures), entitled "Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders". The present study examined 25 psychopathological personality disorder facets, as presented in Section III, in regard to their predictive ability of individual personality disorders in a sample of 217 university students. Two established personality disorder instruments were used: the Coolidge Axis II Inventory (CATI; Coolidge, 2000) and the Personal Belief Questionnaire (PBQ; Beck, & Beck, 1991). The 25 personality disorder facets (Section III) were measured by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) and via a newly derived set of 25 personality facet scales (Wekamp, 2013) from the CATI. Results indicated that the 25 PID-5 facets and the 25 CATI facets had good-to-excellent internal reliability, and there
Convergence between the dimensional PD models of ICD-11 and DSM-5: a meta-analytic approach
Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2023
In the current diagnostic systems, the International Classification of Diseases-11th rev. (ICD-11) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th ed. (DSM-5), the evaluation and diagnosis of personality disorder (PD) aim at dimensional examination of the severity of its dysfunction and the stylistic features that accompany it. Since their implementation, or even before, several measures have been developed to assess PD severity and traits in both models. Thus, convergent validity metrics have been reported with various PD measures; however, the convergence of the same constructs included in the measures of these two models remains undefined. The objective of the present review was to examine whether there is a sufficient relationship between PD measures of the ICD-11 and DSM-5 AMPD in the general population. For this meta-analytic review, systematic searches were conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We included studies that reported Pearson's r correlations without restrictions on language, age, sex, setting, type of sample, or informant of the measures. We excluded associations with anankastia, psychoticism or the borderline pattern because they were not comparable between one dimensional model and the other. We examined the quality of the evidence with the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies, and performed the random effects meta-analysis with the 'meta' package of the RStudio software. Of the 5,629 results returned by the search, 16 studies were eligible; and showed moderate quality. The risk of bias was manifested by not specifying the details of the sample, the recruitment environment, and the identification and control of confounding factors. Thirteen studies provided two or more correlations resulting in a total of 54 studies for meta-analysis. The overall effect size estimate (correlation) was moderate for the overall model (r = 0.62, 95% CI [0.57, 0.67], p < 0.0001, I 2 = 97.6%). For the subgroup of associations, ICD-11 severity model and DSM-5 AMPD severity model, the correlation was also moderate (k = 10, r = 0.57, 95% CI [0.48; 0.66]; I 2 = 92.9%); as for the subgroup of associations, ICD-11 traits model and DSM-5 AMPD traits model (k = 44, r = 0.63, 95% CI [0.57; 0.69], I 2 = 97.9%). The convergent validity between measures of PD severity and traits between one diagnostic system and another has been demonstrated in this review and they can probably be used interchangeably because they also measure the same constructs. Future research can address the limitations of this study and review the evidence for the discriminant validity of these measures.
European Journal …, 2005
The personality disorder classification system (Axis II) in the various versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been the target of repeated criticism, with conceptual analysis and empirical evidence documenting its flaws. In response, many have proposed alternative approaches for the assessment of personality psychopathology, including the application of the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM). Many remain sceptical, however, as to whether domain and facet traits from a model of general personality functioning can be successfully applied to clinical patients with personality disorders (PDs). In this study, with a sample of psychiatric patients (n ¼ 115), personality disorder symptoms corresponding to each of the 10 PDs were successfully predicted by the facet and domain traits of the FFM, as measured by a semi-structured interview, the Structured Interview for the Five Factor Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997) and a self-report questionnaire, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; . These results provide support for the perspective that personality psychopathology can be captured by general personality dimensions. The FFM has the potential to provide a valid and scientifically sound framework from which to assess personality psychopathology, in a way that covers most of the domains conceptualized in DSM while transcending the limitations of the current categorical approach to these disorders.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 2011
Earlier factor analytical studies on the empirical validity of the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychological Association, 2000) Axis II classification have offered little support for the current three-cluster structure. In his large-scale meta-analysis of previously published personality disorder correlation matrices, found four factors, corresponding to the neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness domains of the five-factor model of personality. In the present study, this dimensional four-factor model and the categorical DSM three-cluster structure were fitted to the Assessment of DSM-IV Personality Disorders questionnaire (ADP-IV; scale scores using structural equation modelling. The results strongly favored the dimensional model, which also resembled other well-founded four-factor proposals . Moreover, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis showed that this model was highly invariant and thus generalizable across two large clinical (n = 1,029) and general population (n = 659) samples.
Journal of Personality, 2006
The validity of Cloninger's psychobiological model and the Five-Factor Model of personality to predict DSM-IV personality disorders was examined in a psychiatric in-patient sample of 130 individuals. Patients completed Dutch authorized versions of the TCI (Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993) and the NEO PI-R and were also administered the ADP-IV (Schotte & De Doncker, 1994), a Dutch self-report questionnaire to assess Axis-II disorders. No personality-descriptive model proved to be superior in explaining personality disorder symptoms at the higher-order level: the TCI dimensions better explained the Obsessive-Compulsive and the Narcissistic disorders, whereas the FFM accounted for more variance of the Avoidant disorder. However, differences were apparent at the lower-order level with the We are much indebted to all patients for their collaboration and to Daan Vandenbossche for his help with the preparation of the tables. Barbara De Clercq held a position as BOF-researcher