scholarly journals Assessing adolescent personality pathology

2005 ◽  
Vol 186 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drew Westen ◽  
Lissa Dutra ◽  
Jonathan Shedler
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Health ◽  
Child Behavior Checklist ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Emotional Dysregulation ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Assessment Procedure ◽  
Delinquent Behaviour ◽  
Adolescent Personality

BackgroundPersonality pathology constitutes a major form of psychopathology in adolescents.AimsTo examine the reliability and validity of a Q-sort instrument for assessing adolescent personality pathology designed for clinically experienced informants.MethodA sample of 294 randomly selected psychiatrists and psychologists each provided data on a current patient, aged 14–18 years. Clinicians completed several measures, including the Shedler–Westen Assessment Procedure for Adolescents (SWAP–200–A).ResultsFactor analysis identified II dimensions of adolescent personality: psychopathology/malignant narcissism, dysphoria/inhibition, psychological health, histrionic sexualisation, schizotypy, sexual conflict, emotional dysregulation, anxious obsessionality, peer rejection, delinquent behaviour and attentional dysregulation. These correlated in predicted ways with a range of criterion variables, including measures of adaptive functioning, Axis II pathology, the Five Factor Model and the Child Behavior Checklist.ConclusionsThe SWAP–200–A shows promise as an instrument for assessing personality pathology in adolescents. Trait dimensions such as delinquent behaviour and emotional dysregulation may prove useful additions to a classification of personality.

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.

Problemi di psicoterapia

2009 ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Paolo Migone
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Assessment Procedure ◽  
Eysenck Personality Inventory ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Borderline Disorder ◽  
Character Inventory ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Borderline Diagnosis ◽  
Dimensional Assessment

- After an introduction on the dimensional approach in personality diagnosis and on its use as an attempt at solving some of the problems of categorical diagnoses (such as those of DSM-III and DSM-IV), the main dimensional models of personality are presented, namely: 16 PF Questionnaire by Cattell, Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), Five-Factor Model (FFM) by Costa & McCrae (Big Five), Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) by Cloninger, Schedule for Nondaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP) by Clark, Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology - Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ) by Livesley, Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB) by Benjamin, the "fundamental polarity (anaclitic and introjective) of personality" by Blatt, Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP). Finally, advantages and disadvantages of dimensional models are discussed, with particular emphasis on borderline disorder.key words: personality, dimensional models, categorical model, borderline, diagnosis

A five-factor model of developmental personality pathology precursors.

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lize Verbeke ◽  
Elien De Caluwé ◽  
Barbara De Clercq
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Pathology

Symptom differentiation of anxiety and depression across youth development and clinic-referred/nonreferred samples: An examination of competing factor structures of the Child Behavior Checklist DSM-oriented scales

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (4pt1) ◽  
pp. 1005-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggi Price ◽  
Charmaine Higa-McMillan ◽  
Chad Ebesutani ◽  
Kelsie Okamura ◽  
Brad J. Nakamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Child Behavior ◽  
Youth Development ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Child Behavior Checklist ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Depressive Symptomology ◽  
Model Research ◽  
Competing Models

AbstractThis study examined the psychometric properties of the DSM-oriented scales of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, Dumenci, & Rescorla, 2003) using confirmatory factor analysis to compare the six-factor structure of the DSM-oriented scales to competing models consistent with developmental theories of symptom differentiation. We tested these models on both clinic-referred (N = 757) and school-based, nonreferred (N = 713) samples of youths in order to assess the generalizability of the factorial structures. Although previous research has supported the fit of the six-factor DSM-oriented structure in a normative sample of youths ages 7 to 18 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), tripartite model research indicates that anxiety and depressive symptomology are less differentiated among children compared to adolescents (Jacques & Mash, 2004). We thus examined the relative fit of a six- and a five-factor model (collapsing anxiety and depression) with younger (ages 7–10) and older (ages 11–18) youth subsamples. The results revealed that the six-factor model fit the best in all samples except among younger nonclinical children. The results extended the generalizability of the rationally derived six-factor structure of the DSM-oriented scales to clinic-referred youths and provided further support to the notion that younger children in nonclinical samples exhibit less differentiated symptoms of anxiety and depression.

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.

scholarly journals Ratings of dimensional traits in clinical practice: Comparing therapist and client perspectives

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Balling ◽  
Sean Patrick Lane ◽  
Douglas Samuel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Structural Validity ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Rating Form

Research has repeatedly evidenced the structural validity of the Five Factor Model (FFM), but questions remain about the use of its dimensions in clinical practice. Samuel and colleagues (2018) found therapists reported their clients had lower levels of personality pathology compared to clients’ own self-reports when using the unipolar PID-5 scale. The present study utilized the same sample of 54 client-therapist dyads to examine their use of the bipolar FFM Rating Form (FFMRF). When comparing the clinical ratings to expertly-rated healthy profile ratings, clients rated themselves as more aligned with healthy than their therapists rated them. Alternatively, clients were up to 3.6 times more likely to use the extreme (i.e. theoretically pathological) ratings of the FFMRF compared to their therapists. These results suggest that therapists and clients use these measures quite differently, and we cannot firmly conclude which source reports more pathology. Theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

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.

Discrepancies in Self- and Informant-Reports of Personality Pathology: Examining the DSM-5 Section III Trait Model

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Carnovale ◽  
Erika Carlson ◽  
Lena C. Quilty ◽  
Michael Bagby
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Community Sample ◽  
Elevated Risk ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Potential Approach ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Severity Scores

A proposed feature of personality pathology involves disturbances in identity, of which a lack of insight is one such manifestation. From recommendations in the literature, one potential approach to assess and quantify such impairment and link it to personality pathology, would be to obtain self- and informant reports and subsequently index the degree personality pathology severity exacerbates self-other discrepancies. The current study examines the degree to which self- and informant-reports of DSM-5 Section III trait scores are discrepant (i.e., mean-level discrepancies and correlational accuracy), as well as whether general personality pathology severity moderates these characteristics. Target participants (N = 208) in an elevated-risk community sample completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), and knowledgeable informants rated targets using the informant version of the PID-5. General personality pathology severity was assessed via an aggregate of Five Factor Model PD prototype scores derived from self-report, informant-report, and interview ratings. Mean-level discrepancies and correlational accuracy (and their moderation by general personality pathology) for PID-5 domains, facets, and PD scores were subsequently examined. Results suggested that targets tended to mostly rate themselves only slightly lower than informants across all PID-5 scores (median dz = .21), and correlational accuracy across all PID-5 scores was moderate (median r = .33). Importantly, however, mean-level discrepancies increased as general personality pathology severity scores increased. Implications and future directions for the multi-method assessment of dimensional personality pathology are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document