scholarly journals Predictive validity of the five-factor model prototype scores for antisocial and borderline personality disorders

10.1002/pmh.3 ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie D. Stepp ◽  
Timothy J. Trull
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Borderline Personality Disorders

The Five-Factor Model of Personality in Borderline and Nonborderline Personality Disorders

1995 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 523-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hallie Zweig-Frank ◽  
Joel Paris
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Clinical Symptomatology ◽  
Community Norms ◽  
Five Factors ◽  
Borderline Patients

Objective The purpose of this study was to examine to what extent the phenomena associated with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) can be described by the five-factor model of personality. Method The sample consisted of female patients with BPD (n=29) and a control group with a mixture of nonborderline personality disorders (n=30). All subjects were given the NEO-PI-R. Results Borderline patients differed from community norms on all five factors, and were particularly high on Neuroticism, and particularly low on Agreeableness. The scores on the five factors did not differ significantly between the 2 clinical groups. Two facets of the conscientiousness scale (competence and deliberation) were significantly lower in the BPD group. Conclusions Dimensional profiles only partially account for the clinical symptomatology seen in formally diagnosed cases of BPD.

The relationship between reflective functioning and affect consciousness in patients with avoidant and borderline personality disorders.

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-393
Author(s):  
Merete S. Johansen ◽  
Sigmund W. Karterud ◽  
Eivind Normann-Eide ◽  
Frida G. Rø ◽  
Elfrida H. Kvarstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Reflective Functioning ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Borderline Personality Disorders ◽  
The Relationship

Comparison of categorical and dimensional approaches to the diagnosis of personality disorders

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
T. G. Gadisov ◽  
A. A. Tkachenko
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Structure ◽  
Categorical Approach ◽  
Personal Traits ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Neo Five Factor Inventory

Summary. Objective: A comparative study of the personality structure from the perspective the Five-factor personality model (“Big Five”) in mentally healthy and in people with personality disorders depending on the leading radical determined by the clinical method.Materials and methods: a comparative study of personality structures in the mentally healthy (13 people) and in individuals with personality disorders (47 people) was carried out. To assess the personality structure, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire was used. Persons with personality disorders were divided into groups in accordance with the leading radical: 24 — with emotionally unstable; 13 — with a histrionic; 6 — with schizoid; 4 — with paranoid radicals.Results: There were no differences in the values of the domains of the Five-Factor personality model between a group of individuals with personality disorders and the norm. The features of domain indicators of the Five-factor personality model were revealed in individuals with personality disorder depending on theradical.Conclusion: The NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire, like most other tools from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model, is not suitable for assessing a person in terms of assigning it to variants of a mental disorder. When comparing the categorical and dimensional approaches to assessing the structure of personality disorders, it was found that the obligate personality traits identified using the categorical approach are fully reflected in the «Big Five» in individuals with a leading schizoid radical. The relations of obligate personal traits with the domains of the Five-factor model of personality in individuals with other (paranoid, histrionic,and emotionally unstable) radicals are less clear.

scholarly journals Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 983-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
LESLIE C. MOREY ◽  
CHRISTOPHER J. HOPWOOD ◽  
JOHN G. GUNDERSON ◽  
ANDREW E. SKODOL ◽  
M. TRACIE SHEA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Validation Data ◽  
Categorical Diagnosis ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Marker Variables ◽  
Over Time

Background. The categorical classification system for personality disorder (PD) has been frequently criticized and several alternative dimensional models have been proposed.Method. Antecedent, concurrent and predictive markers of construct validity were examined for three models of PDs: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP) model and the DSM-IV in the Collaborative Study of Personality Disorders (CLPS) sample.Results. All models showed substantial validity across a variety of marker variables over time. Dimensional models (including dimensionalized DSM-IV) consistently outperformed the conventional categorical diagnosis in predicting external variables, such as subsequent suicidal gestures and hospitalizations. FFM facets failed to improve upon the validity of higher-order factors upon cross-validation. Data demonstrated the importance of both stable trait and dynamic psychopathological influences in predicting external criteria over time.Conclusions. The results support a dimensional representation of PDs that assesses both stable traits and dynamic processes.

Borderline Symptom Inventory: Assessing Inpatient and Outpatient Borderline Personality Disorders

1988 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee S. Mann ◽  
Thomas N. Wise ◽  
Errol A. Segall ◽  
Richard L. Goldberg ◽  
David M. Goldstein
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Borderline Personality Disorders ◽  
Symptom Inventory

Personality Disorders and The Five-Factor Model of Personality

1990 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul T. Costa ◽  
Robert R. McCrae
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document