DSM‐IV personality disorders and the Five‐Factor Model of personality: a multi‐method examination of domain‐ and facet‐level predictions

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Michael Bagby ◽  
Paul T. Costa ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Andrew G. Ryder ◽  
Margarita Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Personality Psychopathology

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 = 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; Costa and McCrae, 1992). 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. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Incremental validity of the Structured Interview for the Five‐Factor Model of Personality (SIFFM)

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 343-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie D. Stepp ◽  
Timothy J. Trull ◽  
Rachel M. Burr ◽  
Mimi Wolfenstein ◽  
Angela Z. Vieth
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Histrionic Personality Disorder

This study examined the incremental validity of the Structured Interview for the Five‐Factor Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997) scores in the prediction of borderline, antisocial, and histrionic personality disorder symptoms above and beyond variance accounted for by scores from the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993), a self‐report questionnaire that includes items relevant to both normal (i.e. Big Three) and abnormal personality traits. Approximately 200 participants (52 clinical outpatients, and 149 nonclinical individuals from a borderline‐features‐enriched sample) completed the SIFFM, the SNAP, and select sections of the Personality Disorder Interview—IV (PDI‐IV; Widiger, Mangine, Corbitt, Ellis, & Thomas, 1995). We found support for the incremental validity of SIFFM scores, further indicating the clinical utility of this instrument. However, results also supported the incremental validity of SNAP scores in many cases. We discuss the implications of the findings in terms of dimensional approaches to personality disorder assessment. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Similarities and differences among antisocial and psychopathic self‐report inventories from the perspective of general personality functioning

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jabbar Hicklin ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Antisocial Personality Disorder ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Psychopathic Personality ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Report Measure

There are currently many alternative self‐report inventories for the assessment of antisocial and psychopathic personality traits. The hypothesis of the current study was that similarities and differences among them can be meaningfully understood with respect to their representation of common personality traits. The current study explored this hypothesis using as a point of comparison the Five Factor Model (FFM) of general personality functioning. Six self‐report measures currently being used in antisocial and psychopathy research were administered, along with a self‐report measure of the FFM. Differences were obtained across the six inventories with respect to how they related to the domains and facets of the FFM that were consistent with FFM models of psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Implications for the theoretical and clinical understanding of findings obtained with the respective inventories, and the personality disorder constructs they assess, are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Borderline Personality Disorder: Associations Between Dimensional Personality Profiles and Self-Destructive Behaviors

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina Kolbeck ◽  
Steffen Moritz ◽  
Julia Bierbrodt ◽  
Christina Andreou
Keyword(s):  
Borderline Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Risk Preference ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Profiles ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Destructive Behaviors

Ongoing research is shifting towards a dimensional understanding of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Aim of this study was to identify personality profiles in BPD that are predictive of self-destructive behaviors. Personality traits were assessed (n = 130) according to the five-factor model of personality (i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness) and an additional factor called Risk Preference. Self-destructive behavior parameters such as non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) and other borderline typical dyscontrolled behaviors (e.g., drug abuse) were assessed by self-report measures. Canonical correlation analyses demonstrated that Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness are predictors of NSSI. Further, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Risk Preference were associated with dyscontrolled behaviors. Our results add further support on personality-relevant self-destructive behaviors in BPD. A combined diagnostic assessment could offer clinically meaningful insights about the causes of self-destruction in BPD to expand current therapeutic repertoires.

scholarly journals The Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11: A Facet-Level Assessment of the ICD-11 Trait Model

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua R. Oltmanns ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Theoretical Structure ◽  
Specific Assessment ◽  
Data Collections ◽  
Domain Level ◽  
Report Measure

The ICD-11 includes a dimensional model of personality disorder assessing five domains of maladaptive personality. To avoid unnecessary complexity, the ICD-11 model includes assessment of personality traits only at the domain level. A measure exists to assess the domains of the ICD-11 model (the Personality Inventory for ICD-11; PiCD), yet a more rich and useful assessment of personality is provided at the facet level. We used items from the scales assessing the five-factor model of personality disorder (FFMPD) to develop the Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (FFiCD), a new 121-item, 20-facet, self-report measure of the ICD-11 maladaptive personality domains at the facet level. Further, the FFiCD includes 47 short scales organized beneath the facets—at the “nuance” level. Items were selected and evaluated empirically across two independent data collections, and the resulting scales were further validated in a third data collection. Correlational and factor analytic results comparing the scales of the FFiCD to the five-factor model, PiCD, and Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) supported the validity of the theoretical structure of the FFiCD and the ICD-11 model. The FFiCD may be a useful instrument for clinicians and researchers interested in a more specific assessment of maladaptive personality according to the dimensional ICD-11 personality disorder model.

Personality Disorders as Collections of Traits

2019 ◽  
pp. 40-70
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
General Model ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Empirical Relations ◽  
Expert Ratings

This chapter argues that personality disorders can and should be understood as collections of basic personality traits from a general model of personality, namely the five-factor model (FFM). It reviews evidence for the convergence of FFM personality disorder profiles across multiple approaches—expert ratings (i.e., researchers and clinicians) and empirical relations. It discusses how to score the personality disorders from the FFM and provides evidence for the convergent, discriminant, and construct validity of this approach. The chapter also demonstrates how the new alternative model for personality disorders can be embedded within the more established and robust FFM literature.

Childhood antecedents of personality disorder: An alternative perspective

2009 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 771-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Barbara De Clercq ◽  
Filip De Fruyt
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Structure ◽  
Childhood And Adolescence ◽  
Adult Personality ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Childhood Antecedents

AbstractOne of the fundamental limitations of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Fourth Edition, Text Revision(DSM-IV-TR) categorical model of personality disorder classification has been the lack of a strong scientific foundation, including an understanding of childhood antecedents. TheDSM-IV-TRpersonality disorders, however, do appear to be well understood as maladaptive variants of the domains and facets of the general personality structure as conceptualized within the five-factor model (FFM). Integrating the classification of personality disorder with the FFM brings to an understanding of the personality disorders a considerable body of scientific research on childhood antecedents. The temperaments and traits of childhood do appear to be antecedent to the FFM of adult personality structure, and these temperament and traits of childhood and adolescence are the likely antecedents for adult personality disorder, providing further support for the conceptualization of the adult personality disorders as maladaptive variants of the domains and facets of the FFM. Conceptualizing personality disorders in terms of the FFM thereby provides a basis for integrating the classification of abnormal and normal personality functioning across the life span.

An Examination of the Reliability and Validity of the Comprehensive Assessment of Traits Relevant to Personality Disorder–Static Form (CAT-PD-SF)

Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319112090795
Author(s):  
Tessa A. Long ◽  
Ellen Reinhard ◽  
Martin Sellbom ◽  
Jaime L. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Functional Impairment ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Comprehensive Assessment ◽  
Marginal Model ◽  
Order Structure ◽  
Personality Psychopathology ◽  
Static Form

The current study examined the reliability and validity of the Comprehensive Assessment of Traits Relevant to Personality Disorder–Static Form (CAT-PD-SF), a dimensional measure of personality psychopathology. Specifically, we used exploratory factor analysis to determine the best higher order structure for the CAT-PD-SF traits. Results suggested a five-factor structure, albeit with marginal model fit. Second, we used correlation analyses to compare the CAT-PD-SF with two additional dimensional measures of personality, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5–Brief Form and the Five-Factor Model Rating Form. The results demonstrated the CAT-PD-SF scale scores were associated with domain and facet scores from these two models in a conceptually expected manner. Finally, we explored the association between the CAT-PD-SF scores and functional impairment and found moderate associations between CAT-PD-SF trait and functional impairment scores (as measured by the Measure of Disordered Personality Functioning Scale). Overall, findings add support to the structure of the CAT-PD model, and the use of the CAT-PD-SF in measuring dimensional personality psychopathology and impairment.

Structure of Personality Disorders from the Perspective of the Revised Neo Personality Inventory Domain Scales and the Psychopathology-5 Scales

1999 ◽  
Vol 85 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1119-1122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupama Byravan ◽  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Principal Axis ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Adjective Checklist ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Revised Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Separate Factor ◽  
Personality Disorder Scales

This study tested the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model of personality as applied to the Personality Adjective Checklist's (Strack, 1987) personality disorder scales. A sample of 258 undergraduates (113 men and 145 women) completed the Personality Adjective Checklist, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, and the Psychopathology-5 Scales for partial course credit. A combined principal axis analysis with varimax rotation was performed for nonoverlapping scales of the Personality Adjective Checklist, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory domain scales and the Psychopathology-5 scales. The results indicated four factors which were identified as Neuroticism, Extraversion, Disagreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Openness did not emerge as a separate factor. These results supported the comprehensiveness but not the generality of the five-factor model as applied to personality disorders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document