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.

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.

Relating DSM-5 section III personality traits to section II personality disorder diagnoses

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Morey ◽  
K. T. Benson ◽  
A. E. Skodol
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Work Group ◽  
Taxonomic Structure ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Dsm Iv

BackgroundThe DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group formulated a hybrid dimensional/categorical model that represented personality disorders as combinations of core impairments in personality functioning with specific configurations of problematic personality traits. Specific clusters of traits were selected to serve as indicators for six DSM categorical diagnoses to be retained in this system – antisocial, avoidant, borderline, narcissistic, obsessive–compulsive and schizotypal personality disorders. The goal of the current study was to describe the empirical relationships between the DSM-5 section III pathological traits and DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II personality disorder diagnoses.MethodData were obtained from a sample of 337 clinicians, each of whom rated one of his or her patients on all aspects of the DSM-IV and DSM-5 proposed alternative model. Regression models were constructed to examine trait–disorder relationships, and the incremental validity of core personality dysfunctions (i.e. criterion A features for each disorder) was examined in combination with the specified trait clusters.ResultsFindings suggested that the trait assignments specified by the Work Group tended to be substantially associated with corresponding DSM-IV concepts, and the criterion A features provided additional diagnostic information in all but one instance.ConclusionsAlthough the DSM-5 section III alternative model provided a substantially different taxonomic structure for personality disorders, the associations between this new approach and the traditional personality disorder concepts in DSM-5 section II make it possible to render traditional personality disorder concepts using alternative model traits in combination with core impairments in personality functioning.

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.

scholarly journals Development and preliminary validation of a Five Factor Model measure of Machiavellianism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Collison ◽  
Colin Vize ◽  
Josh Miller ◽  
Donald Lynam
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Big Five Personality Traits ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Preliminary Validation ◽  
Expert Ratings

Machiavellianism is characterized by planfulness, the ability to delay gratification, and interpersonal antagonism (i.e., manipulativeness and callousness). Although its theoretically positive relations with facets of conscientiousness should help distinguish Machiavellianism from psychopathy, current measurements of Machiavellianism are indistinguishable from those of psychopathy due mostly to their assessment of low conscientiousness. The goal of the present study was to create a measure of Machiavellianism that is more in line with theory using an expert-derived profile based on the thirty facets of the Five Factor Model (FFM) and then test the validity of that measure by comparing it to relevant constructs. Previously collected expert ratings of the prototypical Machiavellian individual on FFM facets yielded a profile of 13 facets including low agreeableness and high conscientiousness. Items were written to represent each facet, resulting in a 201-item Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (FFMI). Across two studies, with a total of 710 participants recruited via MTurk, the FFMI was reduced to its final 52-item form and was shown to relate as expected to measures of Big Five personality traits, current Machiavellianism measures, psychopathy, narcissism, ambition, and impulsivity. The FFMI is a promising alternative Machiavellianism measure.

Does Machiavellianism Meaningfully Differ From Psychopathy? It Depends

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brinkley M. Sharpe ◽  
Katherine Collison ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
Josh Miller
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Dark Triad ◽  
Personality Construct

Machiavellianism is a personality construct characterized by cynicism, callousness, and skillful manipulation of others to achieve personal gains. We review the Machiavellianism literature with a particular focus on its measurement alongside narcissism and psychopathy in the so-called “Dark Triad” (DT). We discuss criticisms of Machiavellianism on the grounds of insufficient construct validity as well as its virtual indistinguishability from psychopathy when assessed by commonly used instruments. As a response to these criticisms, we offer the super-short form of the Five Factor Machiavellianism Inventory (FFMI-SSF) as an alternative. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the FFMI-SSF in relation to psychopathy and basic personality traits (i.e., the Five Factor Model) and to compare it to widely used measures of the DT and psychopathy in a large undergraduate sample (n = 1,004).

Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

2012 ◽  
pp. 565-581
Author(s):  
Jack Samuels ◽  
Paul T. Costa
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Positive Emotions ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Compulsive Disorder ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder ◽  
Over Time

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) has been described in the clinical literature for over 100 years. Although the specific traits included in the construct have changed over time, there is remarkable consistency in the core concept. OCPD is clinically significant, given its relatively high prevalence in the community, its frequent co-occurrence with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, especially obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders, and treatment challenges. Although OCPD can be quite severe, it is generally less impairing than other personality disorders in the clinic, and it has not been found to be strongly related to functional impairment in the community. OCPD has excellent construct validity, but concerns have been raised about the stability over time and the reliability of assessment. OCPD may be alternatively construed dimensionally, with high conscientiousness as an important feature. Like other personality disorders, OCPD is better understood and described in terms of a combination of traits or facets rather than as reflecting a single domain of personality. In this regard, a number of studies illuminate the contribution of high neuroticism, low openness to actions and values, low agreeableness, and low extraversion facets of warmth and positive emotions. Finally, there are many advantages to tying personality disorders, and especially OCPD, to established dimensions of general personality because a great deal is already known about the dimensions of the Five-Factor Model.

Examining the Contribution of Perfectionistic Traits to the Construct Validity of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorder

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Azad Hemmati ◽  
Brandon Weiss ◽  
Atefeh Mirani ◽  
Farzin Rezaei ◽  
Joshua D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Large Sample ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Do So

Scholars of perfectionism have proposed significant modifications to DSM-5's alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD), such that (1) perfectionism be expanded beyond the inclusion of a singular trait—rigid perfectionism—and (2) perfectionistic traits be specified as trait descriptors of personality disorders (PDs) other than obsessive-compulsive PD. In this study, we evaluate these proposals by examining the degree to which (a) perfectionistic traits are already instantiated in Section II and Section III models of personality pathology; and (b) perfectionistic traits meaningfully augment the construct validity of AMPD PDs. We conducted these approaches in a large sample (N =3D 435) from an Iranian undergraduate population that is atypically found in the literature. Results showed that perfectionistic traits are already fairly well instantiated in Section III Criterion B. Perfectionistic traits minimally improved the construct validity of OCPD, but did not meaningfully do so for other PDs. Future investigation into the clinical utility of perfectionistic traits is needed.

Criterion A Scales: Convergent, Discriminant, and Structural Relationships

Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319112094716
Author(s):  
Gillian A. McCabe ◽  
Joshua R. Oltmanns ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Alternative Measures ◽  
Pathological Personality Traits

The alternative model of personality disorder was created to address the apparent failings of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fourth edition–text revision personality disorder diagnostic categories and consists of Criterion A (i.e., personality functioning) and Criterion B (i.e., pathological personality traits). There are now four alternative measures of the Criterion A impairments but, perhaps surprisingly, no study has yet compared any one of them with any one of the other three. The current study assesses the convergent (and discriminant) validity of all four, as well as their structural relationship with the five-factor model (FFM), a widely accepted model for understanding the structure of normal and pathological personality traits. Exploratory structural equation modeling analyses of the Criterion A measures and FFM scales demonstrate that the Criterion A self-identity scale can be understood as a maladaptive variant of FFM neuroticism. Moreover, results indicate no appreciable discriminant validity in the assessment of the Criterion A impairments—the Criterion A scales correlated more highly within measures than across alternative measures, even when measuring the same construct. Implications of these findings for the conceptualization and assessment of Criterion A self and interpersonal impairments are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document