Preliminary Steps Toward Extracting the Specific Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Diagnoses From Criteria A and B Self-Reports

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-S6
Author(s):  
Dominick Gamache ◽  
Philippe Leclerc ◽  
Maude Payant ◽  
Kristel Mayrand ◽  
Marie-Chloé Nolin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Self Report ◽  
T Score ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Three Samples ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
External Variables ◽  
Hybrid Classification ◽  
Specific Alternative

The Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) retains six specific personality disorders (PDs) that can be diagnosed based on Criterion A level of impairment and Criterion B maladaptive facets. Those specific diagnoses are still underresearched, despite the preference expressed by most PD scholars for a mixed/hybrid classification. This study explores the possibility of using Criterion A and B self-report questionnaires to extract the specific AMPD diagnoses. Plausible prevalence estimates were found in three samples (outpatient PD, private practice, community; N = 766) using the facet score > 2 and t score > 65 methods for determining the presence of a Criterion B facet; diagnoses had meaningful correlations with external variables. This study provides evidence—albeit preliminary—that the extraction of the specific AMPD PDs from self-report questionnaires might be a viable avenue. Ultimately, it could promote the use and dissemination of those diagnoses for screening purposes in clinical and research settings.

An evaluation of DSM-5 Section III Personality Disorder Criterion A (Impairment) in accounting for psychopathology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Sleep ◽  
Donald Lynam ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Michael L Crowe ◽  
Josh Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Statistical Prediction ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
Axis I

An alternative diagnostic model of personality disorders (AMPD) was introduced in DSM-5 that diagnoses PDs based on the presence of personality impairment (Criterion A) and pathological personality traits (Criterion B). Research examining Criterion A has been limited to date, due to the lack of a specific measure to assess it; this changed, however, with the recent publication of a self-report assessment of personality dysfunction as defined by Criterion A (Levels of Personality Functioning Scale – Self-report; LPFS-SR; Morey, 2017). The aim of the current study was to test several key propositions regarding the role of Criterion A in the AMPD including the underlying factor structure of the LPFS-SR, the discriminant validity of the hypothesized factors, whether Criterion A distinguishes personality psychopathology from Axis I symptoms, the overlap between Criterion A and B, and the incremental predictive utility of Criterion A and B in the statistical prediction of traditional PD symptom counts. Neither a single factor model nor an a priori four-factor model of dysfunction fit the data well. The LPFS-SR dimensions were highly interrelated and manifested little evidence of discriminant validity. In addition, the impairment dimensions manifested robust correlations with measures of both Axis I and II constructs, challenging the notion that personality dysfunction is unique to PDs. Finally, multivariate regression analyses suggested that the traits account for substantially more unique variance in DSM-5 Section II PDs than does personality impairment. These results provide important information as to the functioning of the two main components of the DSM-5 AMPD and raise questions about whether the model may need revision moving forward.Keywords: dysfunction, impairment, personality disorders, Section III, incremental validity Public Significance: The alternative model of personality disorders included in Section III of the 5th addition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes two primary components: personality dysfunction and maladaptive traits. The current results raise questions about how a new, DSM-5 aligned measure of personality dysfunction operates with regard its factor structure, discriminant validity, ability to differentiate between personality and non-personality based forms of psychopathology, and incremental validity in the statistical prediction of traditional DSM personality disorders.

Examining the Structure and Validity of Self-Report Measures of DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Criterion A

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Chloe F. Bliton ◽  
Michael J. Roche ◽  
Aaron L. Pincus ◽  
David Dueber
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Measurement Development ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A

The Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) operationalizes Criterion A of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders. Despite progress in LPFS measurement development and validation, there is a lack of research, and some disagreement, concerning structural, convergent, and incremental validity of LPFS self-report measures. The present study aimed to compare the LPFS Self-Report, LPFS Self-Report of Criterion A, and LPFS Brief Form. Internal structure was assessed through principal component analyses, factor analyses, and bifactor analyses of unidimensionality. Associations with both pathological and basic personality characteristics among the LPFS measures were explored. Incremental validity of LPFS severity in predicting pathological personality outcomes controlling for basic personality traits, and the reverse, were examined. Results suggest a unidimensional structure robustly associated with other pathological personality assessments. LPFS severity and basic personality traits mutually offered unique explanatory power. We discuss the implications of assessing personality pathology using LPFS self-report measures.

Indirect Assessment of Attitudes with Response-Time-Based Measures

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliane Degner ◽  
Dirk Wentura ◽  
Klaus Rothermund
Keyword(s):  
Social Cognitive ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Implicit Measures ◽  
Scale Theory ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Predicting Behavior ◽  
Social Cognitive Theories

Abstract: We review research on response-latency based (“implicit”) measures of attitudes by examining what hopes and intentions researchers have associated with their usage. We identified the hopes of (1) gaining better measures of interindividual differences in attitudes as compared to self-report measures (quality hope); (2) better predicting behavior, or predicting other behaviors, as compared to self-reports (incremental validity hope); (3) linking social-cognitive theories more adequately to empirical research (theory-link hope). We argue that the third hope should be the starting point for using these measures. Any attempt to improve these measures should include the search for a small-scale theory that adequately explains the basic effects found with such a measure. To date, small-scale theories for different measures are not equally well developed.

Test-Retest Reliability of a Self-Report Questionnaire for DSM-IV and ICD-10 Personality Disorders

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Ottosson ◽  
Martin Grann ◽  
Gunnar Kullgren
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Anxiety Disorders ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Anxiety State ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Axis I ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Summary: Short-term stability or test-retest reliability of self-reported personality traits is likely to be biased if the respondent is affected by a depressive or anxiety state. However, in some studies, DSM-oriented self-reported instruments have proved to be reasonably stable in the short term, regardless of co-occurring depressive or anxiety disorders. In the present study, we examined the short-term test-retest reliability of a new self-report questionnaire for personality disorder diagnosis (DIP-Q) on a clinical sample of 30 individuals, having either a depressive, an anxiety, or no axis-I disorder. Test-retest scorings from subjects with depressive disorders were mostly unstable, with a significant change in fulfilled criteria between entry and retest for three out of ten personality disorders: borderline, avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Scorings from subjects with anxiety disorders were unstable only for cluster C and dependent personality disorder items. In the absence of co-morbid depressive or anxiety disorders, mean dimensional scores of DIP-Q showed no significant differences between entry and retest. Overall, the effect from state on trait scorings was moderate, and it is concluded that test-retest reliability for DIP-Q is acceptable.

An Alternative to Self-Reports of Trait and State Affect

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Quirin ◽  
Regina C. Bode
Keyword(s):  
Self Report ◽  
Factorial Validity ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
Cognitive Representation ◽  
Affective States ◽  
Novel Variants ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
State Affect ◽  
Affective Experiences ◽  
Automatic Activation

Self-report measures for the assessment of trait or state affect are typically biased by social desirability or self-delusion. The present work provides an overview of research using a recently developed measure of automatic activation of cognitive representation of affective experiences, the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT). In the IPANAT, participants judge the extent to which nonsense words from an alleged artificial language express a number of affective states or traits. The test demonstrates appropriate factorial validity and reliabilities. We review findings that support criterion validity and, additionally, present novel variants of this procedure for the assessment of the discrete emotions such as happiness, anger, sadness, and fear.

Machiavellianism and personality disorder: their relationship in the mirror of interpersonal attitudes

2014 ◽  
Vol 155 (40) ◽  
pp. 1584-1588
Author(s):  
András Láng
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Interpersonal Problems ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Callous Unemotional ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
Medium Strength

Introduction: Social and personality psychologists have described Machiavellianism as a pragmatic, callous-unemotional, exploitative and manipulative attitude towards others. Several former studies linked Machiavellian personality traits and interpersonal problems or personality dysfunction. Aim: The aim of this study was to reveal the connection between Machiavellianism and interpersonal problems that are characteristic of personality disorders. Method: 252 participants (146 females and 106 males, aged 32.46±5.39 years, mean±SD) filled out self-report measures of Machiavellianism and personality disorder related interpersonal problems. Results: There was a medium strength relationships between Machiavellianism and several interpersonal problems. Aggression and ambivalence proved to be significant predictors of Machiavellian personality traits. Conclusions: Results are discussed in relation to the patient–therapist bond. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(39), 1584–1588.

What Women Say They Want versus What Men Imagine They Do: A new and convenient method reveals novel insights about self-reported vs. perceived preferences

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Pierre Jago ◽  
Karen R. Dobkins
Keyword(s):  
Convenient Method ◽  
Physical Attractiveness ◽  
Romantic Partner ◽  
Self Report ◽  
New Method ◽  
Wealth Status ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Potential Partner ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Opposite Gender

To appeal to the opposite gender, previous research indicates that men emphasize their wealth, status, and ambition, whereas women emphasize their physical attractiveness. Such behavior seems surprising given previous surveys in which men and women reported these traits to be less important than others such as trustworthiness, intelligence, and warmth. We addressed one potential reason for any disconnect, which is that men’s and women’s beliefs about what the opposite gender prefers are misguided—according to the opposite genders’ self-reports. Using a new method, we asked participants to both self-report the traits they prefer in a romantic partner and to indicate what they imagine the opposite gender prefers. The results reveal striking discrepancies between what people report wanting in a potential partner and what the opposite gender imagines they want. Additionally, women appear to be better at imagining men’s preferences, and we discuss several reasons why this might be the case.

scholarly journals Reporting on one's behavior: a survey experiment on the nonvalidity of self-reported COVID-19 hygiene-relevant routine behaviors

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Pelle Guldborg Hansen ◽  
Erik Gahner Larsen ◽  
Caroline Drøgemüller Gundersen
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Error ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Test Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Self Reports

Abstract Surveys based on self-reported hygiene-relevant routine behaviors have played a crucial role in policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, using anchoring to test validity in a randomized controlled survey experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we demonstrate that asking people to self-report on the frequency of routine behaviors are prone to significant measurement error and systematic bias. Specifically, we find that participants across age, gender, and political allegiance report higher (lower) frequencies of COVID-19-relevant behaviors when provided with a higher (lower) anchor. The results confirm that such self-reports should not be regarded as behavioral data and should primarily be used to inform policy decisions if better alternatives are not available. To this end, we discuss the use of anchoring as a validity test relative to self-reported behaviors as well as viable alternatives to self-reports when seeking to behaviorally inform policy decisions.

scholarly journals Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Anna Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Outcome Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ecological Momentary

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Self-Report Instruments for the Measurement of Anxiety in Hospitalized Children with Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1911
Author(s):  
Gomolemo Mahakwe ◽  
Ensa Johnson ◽  
Katarina Karlsson ◽  
Stefan Nilsson
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hospitalized Children ◽  
Abstract Concepts ◽  
Children With Cancer ◽  
Language Difficulties ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Psychometric Quality ◽  
Communication Challenge

Anxiety has been identified as one of the most severe and long-lasting symptoms experienced by hospitalized children with cancer. Self-reports are especially important for documenting emotional and abstract concepts, such as anxiety. Children may not always be able to communicate their symptoms due to language difficulties, a lack of developmental language skills, or the severity of their illness. Instruments with sufficient psychometric quality and pictorial support may address this communication challenge. The purpose of this review was to systematically search the published literature and identify validated and reliable self-report instruments available for children aged 5–18 years to use in the assessment of their anxiety to ensure they receive appropriate anxiety-relief intervention in hospital. What validated self-report instruments can children with cancer use to self-report anxiety in the hospital setting? Which of these instruments offer pictorial support? Eight instruments were identified, but most of the instruments lacked pictorial support. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL™) 3.0 Brain Tumor Module and Cancer Module proved to be useful in hospitalized children with cancer, as they provide pictorial support. It is recommended that faces or symbols be used along with the VAS, as pictures are easily understood by younger children. Future studies could include the adaptation of existing instruments in digital e-health tools.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document