A proposal for Axis II: Diagnosing personality disorders using the five-factor model.

2004 ◽  
pp. 431-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Paul T. Costa ◽  
Robert R. McCrae
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Axis Ii

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

Structure of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory Personality Disorder Scales from the Five-Factor Model Perspective

1998 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 947-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nerella V. Ramanaiah ◽  
J. Patrick Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Correlation Analysis ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Canonical Correlation Analysis ◽  
Canonical Correlation ◽  
Simple Structure ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Canonical Variate ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Canonical Variates

Coolidge, et al. in 1994 tested the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model of personality as applied to personality disorders by performing a canonical correlation analysis for the scales from the Coolidge Axis II Inventory and the NEO Personality Inventory testing 178 undergraduates (106 men and 72 women). Their results did not support the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model for interpreting the structure of personality disorders. A major problem with this study was that the data did not show good simple structure and meaningfulness because no rotation was performed for the canonical variates. The present study tested the hypothesis that the results of Coolidge, et al. might be attributed to the failure to rotate canonical variates to obtain good simple structure. For 220 students in introductory psychology (104 men and 116 women), canonical correlation analysis with varimax rotation was performed for scores on the Coolidge Axis II Inventory scales and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory scales. The analysis indicated five canonical variate pairs which were interpreted as Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Disagreeableness, and Conscientiousness, supporting the tested hypothesis as well as the generality and comprehensiveness of this model for describing the structure of personality disorders.

On the Relationship of the Five-Factor Personality Model to Personality Disorders: Four Reservations

1994 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick L. Coolidge ◽  
Lee A. Becker ◽  
David C. DiRito ◽  
Robert L. Durham ◽  
Melanie M. Kinlaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Axis Ii ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Limited Usefulness

McCrae and Costa since 1986 have proferred a five-factor personality model as a lingua franca among different psychometric test users, and they suggest that their operationalization of the five-factor model, the NEO Personality Inventory, may also be useful in the clinical assessment of the abnormal personality. The present study examined the inventory and its relationship to the 11 personality disorders of Axis II of DSM-III—R in a sample of 180 adults. Correlational multivariate analyses appear to indicate a limited usefulness of the five-factor model in the understanding of personality disorders, and four major objections are offered. Further research with clinical samples, other models of personality, and other measures of personality disorders are encouraged.

Comparison of categorical and dimensional approaches to the diagnosis of personality disorders

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
T. G. Gadisov ◽  
A. A. Tkachenko
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Structure ◽  
Categorical Approach ◽  
Personal Traits ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Neo Five Factor Inventory

Summary. Objective: A comparative study of the personality structure from the perspective the Five-factor personality model (“Big Five”) in mentally healthy and in people with personality disorders depending on the leading radical determined by the clinical method.Materials and methods: a comparative study of personality structures in the mentally healthy (13 people) and in individuals with personality disorders (47 people) was carried out. To assess the personality structure, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire was used. Persons with personality disorders were divided into groups in accordance with the leading radical: 24 — with emotionally unstable; 13 — with a histrionic; 6 — with schizoid; 4 — with paranoid radicals.Results: There were no differences in the values of the domains of the Five-Factor personality model between a group of individuals with personality disorders and the norm. The features of domain indicators of the Five-factor personality model were revealed in individuals with personality disorder depending on theradical.Conclusion: The NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire, like most other tools from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model, is not suitable for assessing a person in terms of assigning it to variants of a mental disorder. When comparing the categorical and dimensional approaches to assessing the structure of personality disorders, it was found that the obligate personality traits identified using the categorical approach are fully reflected in the «Big Five» in individuals with a leading schizoid radical. The relations of obligate personal traits with the domains of the Five-factor model of personality in individuals with other (paranoid, histrionic,and emotionally unstable) radicals are less clear.

scholarly journals Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 983-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
LESLIE C. MOREY ◽  
CHRISTOPHER J. HOPWOOD ◽  
JOHN G. GUNDERSON ◽  
ANDREW E. SKODOL ◽  
M. TRACIE SHEA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Validation Data ◽  
Categorical Diagnosis ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Marker Variables ◽  
Over Time

Background. The categorical classification system for personality disorder (PD) has been frequently criticized and several alternative dimensional models have been proposed.Method. Antecedent, concurrent and predictive markers of construct validity were examined for three models of PDs: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP) model and the DSM-IV in the Collaborative Study of Personality Disorders (CLPS) sample.Results. All models showed substantial validity across a variety of marker variables over time. Dimensional models (including dimensionalized DSM-IV) consistently outperformed the conventional categorical diagnosis in predicting external variables, such as subsequent suicidal gestures and hospitalizations. FFM facets failed to improve upon the validity of higher-order factors upon cross-validation. Data demonstrated the importance of both stable trait and dynamic psychopathological influences in predicting external criteria over time.Conclusions. The results support a dimensional representation of PDs that assesses both stable traits and dynamic processes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document