Comparing the Prediction of Dimensional Personality Disorders (PID-5) After Three Personality Trait Models

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Luis F. García ◽  
L. Cuevas ◽  
I. Lucas ◽  
A. Aluja
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Personality Trait ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Questionnaire ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
New Instrument

Abstract. A dimensional approach for Personality Disorders was proposed in the DSM-5. To assess this approach, a new instrument (the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5]) was developed in 2012. One research line has analyzed its convergent validity with personality traits, focusing almost exclusively on the Five-Factor Model (FFM). However, previous evidence about the relationships between Categorical Personality Disorders and other personality trait models shows that they can improve our understanding of Personality Disorders beyond the FFM. The aim of the present study is to compare the power of three personality models (FFM, Cloninger’s, and Zuckerman’s) to predict PID-5 domains. Three samples from the Spanish and Catalan general population were collected for this study depending on which personality questionnaire was applied (1,052 for revised NEO Personality Inventory [NEO-PI-R], 465 for Zuckerman-Kuhlman-Aluja Personality Questionnaire [ZKA-PQ], and 332 for Temperament and Character Inventory Revised [TCI-R-140]). The PID-5 was also applied to all subjects. Factor and regression results indicate that the three models were able to predict Dimensional Personality Disorders well, although some differences emerge between them. Specific relationships between dimensional disorders and traits, the role of the facets as well as the utility of the results reported are discussed.

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.

Maladaptive Personality Trait Models: Validating the Five-Factor Model Maladaptive Trait Measures With the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and NEO Personality Inventory

Assessment ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley C. Helle ◽  
Stephanie N. Mullins-Sweatt
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Affective Dysregulation ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory Revised ◽  
Pathological Personality Traits

Eight measures have been developed to assess maladaptive variants of the five-factor model (FFM) facets specific to personality disorders (e.g., Five-Factor Borderline Inventory [FFBI]). These measures can be used in their entirety or as facet-based scales (e.g., FFBI Affective Dysregulation) to improve the comprehensiveness of assessment of pathological personality. There are a limited number of studies examining these scales with other measures of similar traits (e.g., DSM-5 alternative model). The current study examined the FFM maladaptive scales in relation to the respective general personality traits of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised and the pathological personality traits of the DSM-5 alternative model using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. The results indicated the FFM maladaptive trait scales predominantly converged with corresponding NEO Personality Inventory-Revised, and Personality Inventory for DSM-5 traits, providing further validity for these measures as extensions of general personality traits and evidence for their relation to the pathological trait model. Benefits and applications of the FFM maladaptive scales in clinical and research settings are discussed.

A Comparison of Two Five-Factor Model Operationalizations of the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy in a Clinical Sample

Assessment ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107319112110061
Author(s):  
Jared R. Ruchensky ◽  
M. Brent Donnellan ◽  
Christopher J. Hopwood ◽  
John F. Edens ◽  
Andrew E. Skodol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Negative Affect ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory Revised ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Triarchic Model

Structural models of personality traits, particularly the five-factor model (FFM), continue to inform ongoing debates regarding what personality attributes and trait domains are central to psychopathy. A growing body of literature has linked the constructs of the triarchic model of psychopathy (boldness, meanness, disinhibition) to the FFM. Recently, researchers developed both item and regression-based measures of the triarchic model of psychopathy using the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised—a popular measure of the FFM. The current study examines the correlates of these two FFM-derived operationalizations of the triarchic model using data from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. The two approaches had strong convergent validity coefficients and similar patterns of criterion-related validity coefficients. Meanness related to greater personality pathology characterized by exploitation of others and poor attachment, whereas disinhibition related to indicators of greater negative affect and poor behavioral constraint. Boldness related to reduced negative affect and greater narcissistic personality traits. Although the item and regression-based approaches showed similar patterns of associations with criterion-variables, the item-based approach has some practical and psychometric advantages over the regression-based approach given strong correlations between the meanness and disinhibition scores from the regression approach.

Development and Validation of the Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model (FI-FFM)

Assessment ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Watson ◽  
Ericka Nus ◽  
Kevin D. Wu
Keyword(s):  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Validity Data ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Three Samples ◽  
Five Phases

The Faceted Inventory of the Five-Factor Model (FI-FFM) is a comprehensive hierarchical measure of personality. The FI-FFM was created across five phases of scale development. It includes five facets apiece for neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness; four facets within agreeableness; and three facets for openness. We present reliability and validity data obtained from three samples. The FI-FFM scales are internally consistent and highly stable over 2 weeks (retest rs ranged from .64 to .82, median r = .77). They show strong convergent and discriminant validity vis-à-vis the NEO, the Big Five Inventory, and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Moreover, self-ratings on the scales show moderate to strong agreement with corresponding ratings made by informants ( rs ranged from .26 to .66, median r = .42). Finally, in joint analyses with the NEO Personality Inventory–3, the FI-FFM neuroticism facet scales display significant incremental validity in predicting indicators of internalizing psychopathology.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form in Chinese undergraduate students and clinical patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panwen Zhang ◽  
Zirong Ouyang ◽  
Shulin Fang ◽  
Jiayue He ◽  
Lejia Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Background: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF) is a 25-item measuring tool evaluating maladaptive personality traits for the diagnosis of personality disorders(PDs). As a promising scale, its impressive psychometric properties have been verified in some countries, however, there have no studies about the utility of PID-5-BF in Chinese settings. The current study aimed to explore the maladaptive personality factor model which was culturally adapted in China and examine psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form among Chinese undergraduate students and clinical patients.Methods: 7155 undergraduate students and 451 clinical patients completed the Chinese version of PID-5-BF. 228 students were chosen randomly for test-retest reliability at a 4-week interval. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to discover the most suitable construct in Chinese, measurement invariance(MI), internal consistency, and external validity were also calculated.Results: An exploratory six-factor model was supported more suitable in both samples(Undergraduate sample: CFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.888, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.039; Clinical sample: CFI = 0.904, TLI = 0.886, RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.060), adding a new factor“Interpersonal Relationships”. Measurement invariance across non-clinical and clinical sample was established (configural, weak, strong MI, and partial strict MI). Aside from acceptable internal consistency (Undergraduate sample: alpha=0.84, MIC=0.21; Clinical sample: alpha=0.86, MIC=0.19) and test-retest reliability(0.73), the association with 220-item PID-5 was significant(r = 0.93, p < 0.01), and six PDs measured by Personality diagnostic questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+) were correlated with expected domains of PID-5-BF.Conclusions: The PID-5-BF is a convenient and useful screening tool for personality disorders with a novel six-factor model in Chinese settings, with the main difference for the Negative Affect domain.

California Psychological Inventory and the Five-Factor Model of Personality

1993 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. Deniston ◽  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
California Psychological Inventory ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Psychological Inventory

The generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model was tested using the California Psychological Inventory, with the Interpersonal Adjective Scales Revised—B5 and the NEO-Personality Inventory scales as markers for the five major personality factors. The three inventories were completed by 88 male and 99 female undergraduates. Results provided strong empirical evidence for the generality of four factors (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness, and Conscientiousness) but not for the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model.

The Convergent Structure of DSM-5 Personality Trait Facets and Five-Factor Model Trait Domains

Assessment ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine M. Thomas ◽  
Matthew M. Yalch ◽  
Robert F. Krueger ◽  
Aidan G. C. Wright ◽  
Kristian E. Markon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Trait ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Dsm 5

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document