ON THE INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF MMPI-2 PSYCHOPATHOLOGY-5 SCALES OVER THE REVISED NEO PERSONALITY INVENTORY SCALES FOR PREDICTING PERSONALITY DISORDERS

2002 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 1084 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANUPAMA BYRAVAN
2002 ◽  
Vol 90 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1084-1090 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupama Byravan ◽  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah

The hypothesis that the MMPI–2 Psychopathology–5 scales are better predictors of personality disorders than the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales was tested using Personality Adjective Checklist personality disorder scales with a 9-point response format. The three inventories were completed by 258 introductory psychology students (113 men and 145 women) for partial course credit. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed for predicting each Personality Adjective Checklist scale by entering the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales as a set in the first step and the Psychopathology–5 scales as a set in the second step. Incremental validity of the Psychopathology–5 scales over the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales for predicting each Personality Adjective Checklist scale was measured by the R2 change at the end of the second step in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Incremental validity values ranged from .01 to .09, with a median of .03, and were significant for only five Personality Adjective Checklist scales. Such results provided very little support for the hypothesis of relative superiority of the Psychopathology–5 scales over the Revised NEO Personality Inventory domain scales for predicting personality disorders.


2002 ◽  
Vol 90 (3_part_2) ◽  
pp. 1084-1090 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupama Byravan ◽  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah

The hypothesis that the MMPI-2 Psychopathology-5 scales are better predictors of personality disorders than the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales was tested using Personality Adjective Checklist personality disorder scales with a 9-point response format, The three inventories were completed by 258 introductory psychology students (113 men and 145 women) for partial course credit. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed for predicting each Personality Adjective Checklist scale by entering the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales as a set in the first step and the Psychopathology-5 scales as a set in the second step. Incremental validity of the Psychopathology-5 scales over the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales for predicting each Personality Adjective Checklist scale was measured by the R2 change at the end of the second step in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Incremental validity values ranged from .01 to .09, with a median of .03, and were significant for only five Personality Adjective Checklist scales. Such results provided very little support for the hypothesis of relative superiority of the Psychopathology-5 scales over the Revised NEO Personality Inventory domain scales for predicting personality disorders.


1999 ◽  
Vol 85 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1119-1122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupama Byravan ◽  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah

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.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e71964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michio Takahashi ◽  
Yukihiko Shirayama ◽  
Katsumasa Muneoka ◽  
Masatoshi Suzuki ◽  
Koichi Sato ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document