Personality Disorders from a general Model of Personality Functioning: Psychopathy and the Five Factor Model

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donal R. Lynam
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
General Model ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Functioning

Personality Disorders as Collections of Traits

2019 ◽  
pp. 40-70
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
General Model ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Empirical Relations ◽  
Expert Ratings

This chapter argues that personality disorders can and should be understood as collections of basic personality traits from a general model of personality, namely the five-factor model (FFM). It reviews evidence for the convergence of FFM personality disorder profiles across multiple approaches—expert ratings (i.e., researchers and clinicians) and empirical relations. It discusses how to score the personality disorders from the FFM and provides evidence for the convergent, discriminant, and construct validity of this approach. The chapter also demonstrates how the new alternative model for personality disorders can be embedded within the more established and robust FFM literature.

DSM‐IV personality disorders and the Five‐Factor Model of personality: a multi‐method examination of domain‐ and facet‐level predictions

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Michael Bagby ◽  
Paul T. Costa ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Andrew G. Ryder ◽  
Margarita Marshall
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Neo Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Personality Psychopathology

The personality disorder classification system (Axis II) in the various versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been the target of repeated criticism, with conceptual analysis and empirical evidence documenting its flaws. In response, many have proposed alternative approaches for the assessment of personality psychopathology, including the application of the Five‐Factor Model of personality (FFM). Many remain sceptical, however, as to whether domain and facet traits from a model of general personality functioning can be successfully applied to clinical patients with personality disorders (PDs). In this study, with a sample of psychiatric patients (n = 115), personality disorder symptoms corresponding to each of the 10 PDs were successfully predicted by the facet and domain traits of the FFM, as measured by a semi‐structured interview, the Structured Interview for the Five Factor Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997) and a self‐report questionnaire, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI‐R; Costa and McCrae, 1992). These results provide support for the perspective that personality psychopathology can be captured by general personality dimensions. The FFM has the potential to provide a valid and scientifically sound framework from which to assess personality psychopathology, in a way that covers most of the domains conceptualized in DSM while transcending the limitations of the current categorical approach to these disorders. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

Clinical Utility of the Five Factor Model

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Mullins-Sweatt ◽  
Douglas B. Samuel ◽  
Ashley Helle
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Clinical Application ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Three Components

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the clinical utility of the Five Factor Model (FFM). This chapter will consider the clinical application of the FFM for treatment in general, but its primary focus will be on the clinical utility of an FFM of personality disorders. Discussed herein will be the three fundamental components of clinical utility: ease of usage, communication, and treatment planning. Empirical research concerning the clinical utility of the FFM also will be considered in terms of the three components. Finally, research and examination of clincians’ perspectives of the utilty of categorical and dimensional models of personality will be discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document