The validity of FFM personality dimensions and maladaptive traits to predict negative affects at work: a six month prospective study in a military sample

2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. S101-S121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean‐Pierre Rolland ◽  
Filip De Fruyt
Keyword(s):  
Negative Affect ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Military Personnel ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Factor Space ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Negative Affects ◽  
Negative Predictor

The present work explores what the domain of maladaptive traits has to offer to the industrial and organizational (I/O) field investigating the incremental validity of maladaptive traits from DSM Axis II to predict negative emotions experienced at work, beyond Five‐Factor Model dimensions. This study was designed to examine the validity of adaptive and maladaptive traits to predict four negative affects (Anger, Fear, Sadness, and Shame) experienced at work in military personnel. The design was longitudinal, including two measurement moments, i.e. prior to and immediately after returning from a peace mission in a foreign country. The four negative affects were largely stable across a six month interval. FFM dimensions substantially explained negative affects experienced six months later, although the variance accounted for varied strongly across affects. In line with previous research, emotional stability was a consistent negative predictor of negative affects at both measurement moments. Two maladaptive traits derived from DSM Axis II (i.e. Borderline and Avoidant) were consistently related to specific negative affects experienced at work. Finally, maladaptive traits did not predict negative affect variance beyond FFM traits. These results are in line with robust findings suggesting that maladaptive trait patterns could be integrated in the five‐factor space, and as a consequence have little or no incremental utility over FFM dimensions. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A Comparison of Two Five-Factor Model Operationalizations of the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy in a Clinical Sample

Assessment ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107319112110061
Author(s):  
Jared R. Ruchensky ◽  
M. Brent Donnellan ◽  
Christopher J. Hopwood ◽  
John F. Edens ◽  
Andrew E. Skodol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Negative Affect ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory Revised ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Triarchic Model

Structural models of personality traits, particularly the five-factor model (FFM), continue to inform ongoing debates regarding what personality attributes and trait domains are central to psychopathy. A growing body of literature has linked the constructs of the triarchic model of psychopathy (boldness, meanness, disinhibition) to the FFM. Recently, researchers developed both item and regression-based measures of the triarchic model of psychopathy using the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised—a popular measure of the FFM. The current study examines the correlates of these two FFM-derived operationalizations of the triarchic model using data from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. The two approaches had strong convergent validity coefficients and similar patterns of criterion-related validity coefficients. Meanness related to greater personality pathology characterized by exploitation of others and poor attachment, whereas disinhibition related to indicators of greater negative affect and poor behavioral constraint. Boldness related to reduced negative affect and greater narcissistic personality traits. Although the item and regression-based approaches showed similar patterns of associations with criterion-variables, the item-based approach has some practical and psychometric advantages over the regression-based approach given strong correlations between the meanness and disinhibition scores from the regression approach.

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.

Personality Testing and Industrial–Organizational Psychology: Reflections, Progress, and Prospects

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leaetta M. Hough ◽  
Frederick L. Oswald
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Organizational Psychology ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Personality Testing ◽  
Personality Tests ◽  
Organizational Research ◽  
Broad Perspective ◽  
Industrial Organizational Psychology ◽  
Multidimensional Models

As the title suggests, this article takes a broad perspective on personality as it is conceptualized and measured in organizational research, and in the spirit of this Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology journal, we framed the article as a series of 7 questions. These 7 questions deal with (1) personality and multidimensional models of performance, (2) personality taxonomies and the five-factor model, (3) the effects of situations on personality–performance relationships, (4) the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability, (5) the need to differentiate personality constructs from personality measures, (6) the concern with faking on personality tests, and (7) the use of personality tests in attempting to address adverse impact. We dovetail these questions with our perspectives and insights in the hope that this will stimulate further discussion with our readership.

scholarly journals Assessment of Fluctuation Between Grandiose and Vulnerable Narcissism: Development and Initial Validation of the FLUX Scales

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua R. Oltmanns ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
Pathological Narcissism ◽  
Vulnerable Narcissism ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Affective Lability ◽  
Pathological Narcissism Inventory ◽  
Item Scale

There is a growing interest in the distinction between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, along with a hypothesis of a fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism within individuals. There are several well-validated measures of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, but research has generally found that they are relatively distinct in their relations with their nomological networks. Further, the existing measures of narcissism do not actually assess for a possible fluctuation. The present study developed three scales of narcissistic fluctuation: Fluctuation between Indifference and Anger, Grandiosity and Shame, and Assertiveness and Insecurity. Consistent with expectations, the FLUX scales correlated with both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, displayed convergent and discriminant validity with factor derived-narcissism scales and the five-factor model, and correlated at moderate-to-large effect sizes with measures of affective lability. The three FLUX scales were also reduced to one unidimensional nine-item scale of narcissistic fluctuation (the g-FLUX) that retained the correlational properties for the more specific scales and had incremental validity over the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory and Pathological Narcissism Inventory grandiose and vulnerable scales in accounting for affective lability. Results from the present study suggest that the FLUX scales may provide an informative assessment of a fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

Five-factor model personality domains in the prediction of Axis II personality disorders: An exploratory study in late adulthood women non-clinical sample

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joana Henriques-Calado ◽  
Maria Eugénia Duarte-Silva ◽  
Diana Junqueira ◽  
Carlota Sacoto ◽  
Ana Marta Keong
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Late Adulthood ◽  
Axis Ii

Hardiness Scales in Iranian Managers: Evidence of Incremental Validity in Relationships with the Five Factor Model and with Organizational and Psychological Adjustment

2005 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 775-781 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nima Ghorbani ◽  
P. J. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Job Satisfaction ◽  
Work Environment ◽  
Psychological Adjustment ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Openness To Experience ◽  
Incremental Validity ◽  
External Control

This study examined the incremental validity of Hardiness scales in a sample of Iranian managers. Along with measures of the Five Factor Model and of Organizational and Psychological Adjustment, Hardiness scales were administered to 159 male managers ( M age = 39.9, SD = 7.5) who had worked in their organizations for 7.9 yr. ( SD = 5.4). Hardiness predicted greater Job Satisfaction, higher Organization-based Self-esteem, and perceptions of the work environment as being less stressful and constraining. Hardiness also correlated positively with Assertiveness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness and negatively with Depression, Anxiety, Perceived Stress, Chance External Control, and a Powerful Others External Control. Evidence of incremental validity was obtained when the Hardiness scales supplemented the Five Factor Model in predicting organizational and psychological adjustment. These data documented the incremental validity of the Hardiness scales in a non-Western sample and thus confirmed once again that Hardiness has a relevance that extends beyond the culture in which it was developed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document