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.

Clinical Utility of the Five Factor Model

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Mullins-Sweatt ◽  
Douglas B. Samuel ◽  
Ashley Helle
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Clinical Application ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Three Components

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the clinical utility of the Five Factor Model (FFM). This chapter will consider the clinical application of the FFM for treatment in general, but its primary focus will be on the clinical utility of an FFM of personality disorders. Discussed herein will be the three fundamental components of clinical utility: ease of usage, communication, and treatment planning. Empirical research concerning the clinical utility of the FFM also will be considered in terms of the three components. Finally, research and examination of clincians’ perspectives of the utilty of categorical and dimensional models of personality will be discussed.

scholarly journals Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders, II: 6-, 8- and 10-year follow-up

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 1705-1713 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Morey ◽  
C. J. Hopwood ◽  
J. C. Markowitz ◽  
J. G. Gunderson ◽  
C. M. Grilo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Axis I ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Characteristic Features

BackgroundSeveral conceptual models have been considered for the assessment of personality pathology in DSM-5. This study sought to extend our previous findings to compare the long-term predictive validity of three such models: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP), and DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs).MethodAn inception cohort from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorder Study (CLPS) was followed for 10 years. Baseline data were used to predict long-term outcomes, including functioning, Axis I psychopathology, and medication use.ResultsEach model was significantly valid, predicting a host of important clinical outcomes. Lower-order elements of the FFM system were not more valid than higher-order factors, and DSM-IV diagnostic categories were less valid than dimensional symptom counts. Approaches that integrate normative traits and personality pathology proved to be most predictive, as the SNAP, a system that integrates normal and pathological traits, generally showed the largest validity coefficients overall, and the DSM-IV PD syndromes and FFM traits tended to provide substantial incremental information relative to one another.ConclusionsDSM-5 PD assessment should involve an integration of personality traits with characteristic features of PDs.

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.

Personality adjectives in British and American English from 1800-2010. How to trace back historical trends in personality.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Steppan
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
American English ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Historical Trends ◽  
Trace Back ◽  
Google Books ◽  
Personality Description ◽  
Over Time

Background: Historic shifts in personality cannot easily be quantified, particularly before the existence of standardized personality tests. However, the historical corpus of a language can give insights into how writers of an era described their contemporaries. The archive of Google books can be used to quantify the relative frequency of personality describing adjectives in British and American English at least since 1800. The aim of the study is to describe trends in adjective use over time with respect to the Five Factor Model (FFM) and common personality disorders (PD’s). Methods: A list of 435 English personality adjectives was available for which FFM-factor loadings exist. Google ngram viewer was used to extract the usage of these adjectives over time. Applying the ’prototype’ approach these adjectives are also indicative of common personality disorders. Results: Over time personality adjectives in total have become more frequently used reaching a maximum in the 1970s for American English and the 2000’s for British English. Regardless of this trend, Openness, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism have risen over time in both corpora. In terms of personality disorder prototypes more obsessive-compulsive and narcissistic (particularly for American English) features of personality have become salient during the second half of the 20th Century. Discussion: These results suggest that there are secular trends in personality description over time. The question whether or not the collective of writers accurately describes their contemporaries cannot be answered unequivocally, however the results show trends, which personality characteristics mattered most to different generations.

scholarly journals Can Clinicians Recognize DSM-IV Personality Disorders From Five-Factor Model Descriptions of Patient Cases?

2009 ◽  
Vol 166 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin M. Rottman ◽  
Woo-kyoung Ahn ◽  
Charles A. Sanislow ◽  
Nancy S. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Dsm Iv

Borderline and Avoidant Personality Disorders and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: A Comparison Between DSM-IV Diagnoses and NEO-PI-R

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 226-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa Wilberg ◽  
Øyvind Urnes ◽  
Svein Friis ◽  
Geir Pedersen ◽  
Sigmund Karterud
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Dsm Iv
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document