Analysis of Moods in Personality Disorders

1970 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Hoffmann ◽  
David Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Social Desirability ◽  
Psychiatric Inpatients ◽  
Acting Out ◽  
Response Set ◽  
History Of ◽  
Observer Ratings

95 psychiatric inpatients with the diagnosis of personality disorder and a history of acting-out behavior were rated by 3 observers on 52 mood items. A factor analysis resulted in 10 factors, 8 of which were interpreted as Friendliness—Hostility, Guilt, Activity, Fatigue, Efficiency, Depression, Confusion, Tension-anxiety. When these observer ratings were compared with self-ratings most differences appeared on the first factor, which suggests the presence of a social desirability response set. Contrary to popular conceptions of personality disorders a population with this diagnosis was rated high on Friendliness and relatively low on Hostility. However, absence of Guilt was confirmed.

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF PERCEIVED DYSFUNCTION RATINGS OF PERSONALITY DISORDER SYMPTOMS

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 595-606
Author(s):  
David C. Watson ◽  
Andrew J. Howell
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Multidimensional Scaling ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Social Impairment ◽  
Multivariate Techniques ◽  
Personal Distress ◽  
High Distress

Dysfunction in personality disorder symptoms was assessed using multivariate techniques to analyse lay judges' (N = 216) ratings of occupational impairment, social impairment, and personal distress. Factor analysis revealed that ratings of occupational impairment and social impairment loaded onto distinct factors. Personal distress ratings loaded onto two separate factors: high distress and low distress. Multidimensional scaling revealed two dimensions for overall dysfunction among personality disorders: severity of dysfunction and internalization-externalization. The dimensions were independence-dependence and severity of dysfunction for occupational impairment, interpersonal involvement and dominance-submission for social impairment, and internalization-externalization and severity for personal distress.

Classification of Personality Disorder

1979 ◽  
Vol 135 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Tyrer ◽  
John Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Interview Schedule ◽  
Personality Variables ◽  
Current Classification ◽  
Personality Disordered

SummaryAn interview schedule was used to record the personality traits of 130 psychiatric patients, 65 with a primary clinical diagnosis of personality disorder and 65 with other diagnoses. The results were analysed by factor analysis and three types of cluster analysis. Factor analysis showed a similar structure of personality variables in both groups of patients, supporting the notion that personality disorders differ only in degree from the personalities of other psychiatric patients. Cluster analysis revealed five discrete categories; sociopathic, passive-dependent, anankastic, schizoid and a non-personality-disordered group. Of all the personality-disordered patients 63 per cent fell into the passive-dependent or sociopathic category. The results suggest that the current classification of personality disorder could be simplified.

Self-report assessment of the DSM-IV personality disorders. Measurement of trait and distress characteristics: the ADP-IV

1998 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 1179-1188 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. K. W. SCHOTTE ◽  
D. de DONCKER ◽  
C. VANKERCKHOVEN ◽  
H. VERTOMMEN ◽  
P. COSYNS
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Assessment ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Item Level ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Scoring Algorithms

Background. Self-report instruments assessing the DSM personality disorders are characterized by overdiagnosis due to their emphasis on the measurement of personality traits rather than the impairment and distress associated with the criteria.Methods. The ADP-IV, a Dutch questionnaire, introduces an alternative assessment method: each test item assesses ‘Trait’ as well as ‘Distress/impairment’ characteristics of a DSM-IV criterion. This item format allows dimensional as well as categorical diagnostic evaluations. The present study explores the validity of the ADP-IV in a sample of 659 subjects of the Flemish population.Results. The dimensional personality disorder subscales, measuring Trait characteristics, are internally consistent and display a good concurrent validity with the Wisconsin Personality Disorders Inventory. Factor analysis at the item-level resulted in 11 orthogonal factors, describing personality dimensions such as psychopathy, social anxiety and avoidance, negative affect and self-image. Factor analysis at the subscale-level identified two basic dimensions, reflecting hostile (DSM-IV Cluster B) and anxious (DSM-IV Cluster C) interpersonal attitudes. Categorical ADP-IV diagnoses are obtained using scoring algorithms, which emphasize the Trait or the Distress concepts in the diagnostic evaluation. Prevalences of ADP-IV diagnoses of any personality disorder according to these algorithms vary between 2·28 and 20·64%.Conclusions. Although further research in clinical samples is required, the present results support the validity of the ADP-IV and the potential of the measurement of trait and distress characteristics as a method for assessing personality pathology.

Relationships of Personality Disorders with MMPI–2 Malingering, Defensiveness, and Inconsistent Response Scales among Forensic Examinees

2002 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 760-766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward A. Wise
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Response Styles ◽  
General Effect ◽  
Validity Scales ◽  
Response Scales ◽  
Response Set ◽  
Personality Disorder Scales ◽  
Validity Measure

MMPI–2 validity scales were correlated with MCMI–II personality disorder scales to examine relationships between response styles and personality disorders in a sample of 84 criminal defendants. 14 MMPI–2 validity scales were significantly correlated with 13 personality disorders. All of the personality disorder scales were significantly correlated with at least one validity measure and 11 of 13 personality disorder scales were significantly correlated with two or more MMPI–2 validity scales. While a personality disorder diagnosis may have a general effect on validity scales, relationships theoretically consistent with a given personality disorder were also found. This means that response set appears to be a manifestation of personality, and as such, examiners should expect symptom amplification or minimization or inconsistent responses, based on an individual's personality. Subsequently, forensic examiners are encouraged to evaluate the relationships between MCMI–II personality disorders and MMPI–2 validity scales to avoid misjudging MMPI–2 profiles as invalid when they accurately reflect manifestations of personality.

The Current State of Personality Disorders Through the Lens of PDTRT

2019 ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Carl W. Lejuez ◽  
Alexis Matusiewicz ◽  
Nadia Bounoua ◽  
James Soldinger
Keyword(s):  
Borderline Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Research Trends ◽  
Current State ◽  
Time Period ◽  
History Of ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Theory Research

This chapter examines recent trends in personality disorder research as they appear in one of the top personality disorder journals—Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment (PDTRT). The chapter provides an overview of the history of PDTRT, as well as describes the types of submissions and manuscripts published in the journal over the last 5 years. It also reports on research trends over that time period, noting increasing interest in the alternative model for personality disorders, the surfeit of research in borderline personality disorder and psychopathy, the increasing use of dimensional versus categorical approaches, the use of nonclinical samples, and the extension of personality disorder traits to younger populations.

scholarly journals Assessing mentalization in psychotherapy: first validation of the Mentalization Imbalances Scale

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Gagliardini ◽  
Salvatore Gullo ◽  
Edgardo Caverzasi ◽  
Annalisa Boldrini ◽  
Stefano Blasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Valid Measure ◽  
Obsessive Compulsive ◽  
Significant Relationships ◽  
Assessment Measure ◽  
Preliminary Validation

The aim of this study was to provide data on the preliminary validation of a clinician-report multidimensional assessment measure of mentalization (Mentalization Imbalances Scale, MIS). A random national sample of psychotherapists (N=190) completed the MIS to identify mentalization imbalances, and the Personality Disorder Checklist to assess the personality disorders (PDs) of randomly selected patients currently in their care. Factor analysis confirmed the presence of six factors that represented different imbalances of mentalization: cognitive, affective, automatic, external, imbalance toward others, and imbalance toward self. We found several significant relationships between patients’ mentalization imbalances and personality pathology. Paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal PDs were predicted by an imbalance toward self, an imbalance the patients shared with histrionic, avoidant, and obsessive compulsive PDs, whereas dependent, borderline, and histrionic PDs were related to an imbalance toward others. Cognitive imbalance was related to schizoid, narcissistic, and obsessive compulsive PDs, whereas affective imbalance predicted antisocial, borderline, narcissistic and histrionic PDs. Automatic imbalance was related to schizotypal, antisocial, and borderline PDs. MIS represents a reliable and valid measure that can help clinicians at understanding patients’ specific difficulties of mentalization.

scholarly journals MCMI-III Personality Disorders, Traits, and Profiles in Adult ADHD Outpatients

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 830-839
Author(s):  
Francesco Oliva ◽  
Chiara Mangiapane ◽  
Gabriele Nibbio ◽  
Alberto Portigliatti Pomeri ◽  
Giuseppe Maina
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Adult Adhd ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Profiles ◽  
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory ◽  
High Prevalence

Objective: To assess prevalence of personality traits and disorders according to Millon’s evolution-based model and to identify the most representative personality profiles among adult ADHD outpatients. Method: Personality traits and disorders were evaluated using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (MCMI-III) and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in a consecutive sample of adult ADHD outpatients ( N = 70) diagnosed by the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale–version 1.1 (ASRS-v1.1) and the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults (DIVA 2.0). Results: More than half of our sample (57.1%) showed at least one personality disorder (PD). The most prevalent PDs were paranoid, schizotypal and negativistic (18.6% for all three PDs), depressive (17.1%), and sadistic (11.4%). No patient had a borderline PD. The EFA identified three personality profiles (“sadistic-antisocial-negativistic,” “masochistic-depressive-dependent-avoidant,” and “antihistrionic-schizoid”). Conclusion: High prevalence of PDs among adult ADHD patients was confirmed. The personality profiles seemed to reflect the persistence of ADHD and related childhood comorbidities in adulthood.

Demographic, Personality Trait and Personality Disorder Correlates of Aesthetic Motivation

2020 ◽  
pp. 027623662094291
Author(s):  
Adrian Furnham
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Personality Trait ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Openness To Experience ◽  
Factor Level ◽  
Future Directions

This study looked at personality and sub-clinical personality disorder correlates of self-rated motives for aesthetic motivation (AM). Two groups, totalling over 4000 adult British managers, completed three tests including a personality trait measure (HPI); a personality disorders measure (HDS), and a measure of their Motives and Values (MVPI) for Aestheticism and Culture. The two different groups had similar results, showing that for personality traits Inquisitiveness (Openness-to-Experience) and Sociability (Extraversion) were positively, and Adjustment (low Neuroticism) and Prudence (Conscientiousness) were negatively, related to AM. For personality disorder traits Imaginativeness (Schizotypy) and Colourful (Histrionic) were positively correlated with AM. Factor analysis confirmed the higher order classification of both traits and disorders. Regressions at the higher factor level suggested personality traits were more related to AM than disorder traits. Implications for the selection and management of aesthetic people are considered. Limitations and future directions are also noted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document