A five-factor model of developmental personality pathology precursors.

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lize Verbeke ◽  
Elien De Caluwé ◽  
Barbara De Clercq
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Pathology

scholarly journals Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders, II: 6-, 8- and 10-year follow-up

2011 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 1705-1713 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Morey ◽  
C. J. Hopwood ◽  
J. C. Markowitz ◽  
J. G. Gunderson ◽  
C. M. Grilo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Axis I ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Characteristic Features

BackgroundSeveral conceptual models have been considered for the assessment of personality pathology in DSM-5. This study sought to extend our previous findings to compare the long-term predictive validity of three such models: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP), and DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs).MethodAn inception cohort from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorder Study (CLPS) was followed for 10 years. Baseline data were used to predict long-term outcomes, including functioning, Axis I psychopathology, and medication use.ResultsEach model was significantly valid, predicting a host of important clinical outcomes. Lower-order elements of the FFM system were not more valid than higher-order factors, and DSM-IV diagnostic categories were less valid than dimensional symptom counts. Approaches that integrate normative traits and personality pathology proved to be most predictive, as the SNAP, a system that integrates normal and pathological traits, generally showed the largest validity coefficients overall, and the DSM-IV PD syndromes and FFM traits tended to provide substantial incremental information relative to one another.ConclusionsDSM-5 PD assessment should involve an integration of personality traits with characteristic features of PDs.

scholarly journals Ratings of dimensional traits in clinical practice: Comparing therapist and client perspectives

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Balling ◽  
Sean Patrick Lane ◽  
Douglas Samuel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Structural Validity ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Rating Form

Research has repeatedly evidenced the structural validity of the Five Factor Model (FFM), but questions remain about the use of its dimensions in clinical practice. Samuel and colleagues (2018) found therapists reported their clients had lower levels of personality pathology compared to clients’ own self-reports when using the unipolar PID-5 scale. The present study utilized the same sample of 54 client-therapist dyads to examine their use of the bipolar FFM Rating Form (FFMRF). When comparing the clinical ratings to expertly-rated healthy profile ratings, clients rated themselves as more aligned with healthy than their therapists rated them. Alternatively, clients were up to 3.6 times more likely to use the extreme (i.e. theoretically pathological) ratings of the FFMRF compared to their therapists. These results suggest that therapists and clients use these measures quite differently, and we cannot firmly conclude which source reports more pathology. Theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

Discrepancies in Self- and Informant-Reports of Personality Pathology: Examining the DSM-5 Section III Trait Model

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Carnovale ◽  
Erika Carlson ◽  
Lena C. Quilty ◽  
Michael Bagby
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Community Sample ◽  
Elevated Risk ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Potential Approach ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Severity Scores

A proposed feature of personality pathology involves disturbances in identity, of which a lack of insight is one such manifestation. From recommendations in the literature, one potential approach to assess and quantify such impairment and link it to personality pathology, would be to obtain self- and informant reports and subsequently index the degree personality pathology severity exacerbates self-other discrepancies. The current study examines the degree to which self- and informant-reports of DSM-5 Section III trait scores are discrepant (i.e., mean-level discrepancies and correlational accuracy), as well as whether general personality pathology severity moderates these characteristics. Target participants (N = 208) in an elevated-risk community sample completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), and knowledgeable informants rated targets using the informant version of the PID-5. General personality pathology severity was assessed via an aggregate of Five Factor Model PD prototype scores derived from self-report, informant-report, and interview ratings. Mean-level discrepancies and correlational accuracy (and their moderation by general personality pathology) for PID-5 domains, facets, and PD scores were subsequently examined. Results suggested that targets tended to mostly rate themselves only slightly lower than informants across all PID-5 scores (median dz = .21), and correlational accuracy across all PID-5 scores was moderate (median r = .33). Importantly, however, mean-level discrepancies increased as general personality pathology severity scores increased. Implications and future directions for the multi-method assessment of dimensional personality pathology are discussed.

A meta‐analysis of psychopathy‐, antisocial PD‐ and FFM associations

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 531-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mieke Decuyper ◽  
Sarah De Pauw ◽  
Filip De Fruyt ◽  
Marleen De Bolle ◽  
Barbara J. De Clercq
Keyword(s):  
Antisocial Personality Disorder ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Negative Association ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Sample Type ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Antisocial Personality

This research meta‐analytically summarizes the relationships of the Five‐Factor Model (FFM) with psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). Effect sizes of the associations between psychopathy, APD and the FFM were compiled from 26 independent samples (N = 6913) for psychopathy and 57 independent samples (N = 16 424) for APD. The results revealed predominantly points of similarity and some differences in the FFM associations of both disorders. Symptoms of psychopathy and APD were negatively associated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness facets and positively with scores on Angry–Hostility (N2), Impulsiveness (N5), Excitement Seeking (E5) and negatively with Warmth (E1). Only psychopathy had a small negative association with Anxiety (N1) and was characterized by stronger negative associations with Agreeableness and Straightforwardness (A2), Compliance (A4) and Modesty (A5) compared to APD. The moderator analyses showed that sample type, use of the NEO‐PI‐R and APD instrument moderated the APD FFM associations, while psychopathy instrument and age group were moderators in the psychopathy MA. Implications of this research for the assessment of APD and psychopathy relying on dimensional models of personality pathology are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

scholarly journals Assessing adolescent personality pathology

2005 ◽  
Vol 186 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drew Westen ◽  
Lissa Dutra ◽  
Jonathan Shedler
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Health ◽  
Child Behavior Checklist ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Emotional Dysregulation ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Assessment Procedure ◽  
Delinquent Behaviour ◽  
Adolescent Personality

BackgroundPersonality pathology constitutes a major form of psychopathology in adolescents.AimsTo examine the reliability and validity of a Q-sort instrument for assessing adolescent personality pathology designed for clinically experienced informants.MethodA sample of 294 randomly selected psychiatrists and psychologists each provided data on a current patient, aged 14–18 years. Clinicians completed several measures, including the Shedler–Westen Assessment Procedure for Adolescents (SWAP–200–A).ResultsFactor analysis identified II dimensions of adolescent personality: psychopathology/malignant narcissism, dysphoria/inhibition, psychological health, histrionic sexualisation, schizotypy, sexual conflict, emotional dysregulation, anxious obsessionality, peer rejection, delinquent behaviour and attentional dysregulation. These correlated in predicted ways with a range of criterion variables, including measures of adaptive functioning, Axis II pathology, the Five Factor Model and the Child Behavior Checklist.ConclusionsThe SWAP–200–A shows promise as an instrument for assessing personality pathology in adolescents. Trait dimensions such as delinquent behaviour and emotional dysregulation may prove useful additions to a classification of personality.

Core dimensions of personality pathology

2020 ◽  
pp. 1201-1210
Author(s):  
Andrew E. Skodol ◽  
Leslie C. Morey
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Psychosocial Impairment ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Diagnostic Approaches ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Pathological Personality Traits

This chapter describes the emergence of dimensional models for the classification and diagnosis of personality pathology. Broad personality traits underlie the meta-structure of psychopathology in general and describe the myriad manifestations of personality disorders (PDs) specifically. Domains of personality functioning distinguish personality styles from PD, and PD from other types of psychopathology, and represent the important construct of severity in personality pathology. This chapter describes the alternative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) model for personality disorder (AMPD) and the five-factor model of personality (FFM) by which it was inspired. It summarizes the development and longitudinal course of personality traits, personality functioning, and PD; the relationship of personality and PD with physical health and psychosocial impairment; and the clinical utility of dimensional diagnostic approaches. Finally, it illustrates how traditional DSM subtypes of PD can be rendered according to impairments in personality functioning and pathological personality traits in a ‘hybrid’ dimensional–categorical model.

Social Desirability in Personality Inventories

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bäckström ◽  
Fredrik Björklund
Keyword(s):  
Social Desirability ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Work Performance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Peer Ratings ◽  
Personality Inventories ◽  
Model Study ◽  
The Difference ◽  
New Variables

The difference between evaluatively loaded and evaluatively neutralized five-factor inventory items was used to create new variables, one for each factor in the five-factor model. Study 1 showed that these variables can be represented in terms of a general evaluative factor which is related to social desirability measures and indicated that the factor may equally well be represented as separate from the Big Five as superordinate to them. Study 2 revealed an evaluative factor in self-ratings and peer ratings of the Big Five, but the evaluative factor in self-reports did not correlate with such a factor in ratings by peers. In Study 3 the evaluative factor contributed above the Big Five in predicting work performance, indicating a substance component. The results are discussed in relation to measurement issues and self-serving biases.

Construction and Validation of a Short Adjectives Checklist to Measure Big Five (SACBIF)

1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Perugini ◽  
Luigi Leone
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Selection Procedure ◽  
Factorial Structure ◽  
Personality Dimensions

The aim of this contribution is to present a new short adjective-based measure of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality, the Short Adjectives Checklist of BIg Five (SACBIF). We present the various steps of the construction and the validation of this instrument. First, 50 adjectives were selected with a selection procedure, the “Lining Up Technique” (LUT), specifically used to identify the best factorial markers of the FFM. Then, the factorial structure and the psychometric properties of the SACBIF were investigated. Finally, the SACBIF factorial structure was correlated with some main measures of the FFM to establish its construct validity and with some other personality dimensions to investigate how well these dimensions could be represented in the SACBIF factorial space.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document