Diagnostic Agreement Between Clinicians and Clients: The Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the SWAP-200 and MCMI-III Personality Disorder Scales

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 796-812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuela S. Gritti ◽  
Douglas B. Samuel ◽  
Margherita Lang
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Diagnostic Agreement ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Personality Disorder Scales

scholarly journals Preliminary Scales for ICD-11 Personality Disorder: Self and Interpersonal Dysfunction Plus Five Personality Disorder Trait Domains

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Anna Clark ◽  
Alejandro Corona-Espinosa ◽  
Shereen Khoo ◽  
Yuliya Kotelnikova ◽  
Holly F. Levin-Aspenson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
The Other ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Model Description ◽  
Component Level ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Interpersonal Dysfunction ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Clinical Description

The ICD-11 personality disorder model is the first fully dimensional assessment of personality pathology. It consists of a personality disorder (PD) dysfunction-severity dimension, which encompasses both self- and interpersonal dysfunction, and six optional qualifiers for five prominent personality traits—Negative Affectivity (NA), Detachment (DET), Dissociality (DSL), Disinhibition (DSN), and Anankastia (ANK)—plus a borderline pattern that is defined by the criteria of DSM-IV borderline PD. This article reports on the development of a new self-report measure to assess self- and interpersonal dysfunction and the five trait qualifiers. It is the first comprehensive measure of the ICD-11 PD model in that (a) it is the only one to include both PD dysfunction-severity as well as trait scales and because (b) it is based on the Clinical Description and Diagnostic Guidelines, which are more detailed than the “statistical” model description that is currently on the ICD-11 website. The authors wrote 992 items and then reduced the pool to 300 items by eliminating redundancy and selecting the consensus best few items for each subconstruct. Data were collected using an online sample of 383 Prolific workers. Using exploratory factor analysis, seven domain scales were developed, each of which contained two to four scales assessing components of the domain. These preliminary scales’ psychometrics were excellent, as were the domains’ and their components’ convergent and discriminant validity, with a few generally minor exceptions. Structural analyses at the component level revealed a three-factor structure consisting of two moderately correlated Internalizing factors, one centered on Self Dysfunction with two NA components and a DSN component (Distractibility) and the other on Interpersonal Dysfunction with DET and ANK components; as well as an Externalizing factor with DSL and a DSN component (Reckless Impulsivity) that was uncorrelated with the other two factors. Two aspects of the results in particular are striking: (1) ANK was not the opposite end of a DSN dimension, but rather contributed to an Internalizing Interpersonal Dysfunction dimension and (2) DSN had both an Internalizing and an Externalizing component. Implications of the findings and study limitations are discussed.

Toward a Comprehensive Symptom-Based Model of Psychopathology

2017 ◽  
pp. 260-286
Author(s):  
David Watson ◽  
Michael W. O’Hara
Keyword(s):  
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ◽  
Eating Disorders ◽  
Major Depression ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Posttraumatic Stress ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Specific Symptom ◽  
Symptom Dimensions ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity

This chapter reviews major findings reported in earlier chapters. First, previous findings confirm the existence of specific symptom dimensions that are highly robust and that show strong convergent and discriminant validity. Second, they establish the existence of multiple symptom dimensions within several disorders. Third, they demonstrate that these specific symptom dimensions have differential criterion validity, differential diagnostic specificity, and differential incremental validity. These symptom data can be used to improve various DSM diagnoses, such as major depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. More fundamentally, they provide the basis for a comprehensive symptom-based model of psychopathology. In addition to the IDAS-II, other instruments assess dimensions underlying sleep disorders, eating disorders, schizotypy, personality disorder, and hypochondriasis. These instruments jointly provide broad coverage of the 19 diagnostic classes contained in DSM-5. These measures support movement away from disorder-based models of psychopathology to ones focused on homogeneous symptom dimensions.

Empirical Evaluation of the McMi—III Personality Disorder Scales

2003 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 627-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gina Rossi ◽  
Claudia Hauben ◽  
Iris van den Brande ◽  
Hedwig Sloore
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Empirical Evaluation ◽  
Base Rate ◽  
Prevalence Rates ◽  
Multimethod Approach ◽  
Personality Disorder Scales ◽  
Screening Device

The MCMI–III personality disorder scales were empirically validated with a sample of 870 clinical patients and inmates. Prevalence rates of personality disorders were in general lower on the MCMI–III than clinical ratings, but trait prevalence was generally higher; thus a base rate of 75 on the MCMI–III could be a guideline in the screening of trait prevalence. However, the sensitivity of some MCMI–III scales was very low. Moreover, the correlations of most personality disorder scales of the MCMI–III were significant and positive with corresponding measures on clinical ratings and MMPI-2 personality disorder scales, but these were, in general, not significantly higher than some other correlations. As a consequence the discriminant validity seems to be questionable. The MCMI–III alone cannot be used as a diagnostic inventory, but the test could be useful as a screening device as a part of a multimethod approach that allows aggregation over measures in making diagnostic decisions.

Differentiating psychopathy from antisocial personality disorder: a triarchic model perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 1005-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. C. Venables ◽  
J. R. Hall ◽  
C. J. Patrick
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Antisocial Personality Disorder ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Antisocial Personality ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised ◽  
Correctional Settings ◽  
High Base ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Triarchic Model

BackgroundThe triarchic model of psychopathy characterizes the disorder in terms of three distinguishable phenotypic facets: disinhibition, meanness and boldness. The present study sought to (1) inform current debates regarding the role of boldness in the definition of psychopathy and (2) clarify boundaries between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).MethodThis study evaluated the degree to which facets of the triarchic model are represented in the most widely used clinical inventory for psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R), in comparison with ASPD as defined by DSM-IV criteria. Adult male offenders from two distinct correctional settings (n = 157 and 169) were investigated to ensure replicability of findings across samples exhibiting high base rates of psychopathy and antisocial behavior.ResultsWe found evidence for convergent and discriminant validity of the three triarchic facets in predicting symptomatic components of psychopathy as assessed by the PCL-R. Additionally, and crucially vis-à-vis current debates in the field, we found that boldness contributed incrementally (over and above disinhibition and meanness) to prediction of PCL-R psychopathy, in particular its interpersonal style component, but not ASPD.ConclusionsThe three distinct facets of the triarchic model of psychopathy are represented clearly and distinctly in the PCL-R, with boldness through its interpersonal facet, but not in DSM-defined ASPD. Our findings suggest that boldness is central to diagnostic conceptions of psychopathy and distinguishes psychopathy from the more prevalent diagnosis of ASPD.

The Development of the Informant Five-Factor Borderline Inventory

Assessment ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 107319112095976
Author(s):  
Jiwon Min ◽  
Stephanie N. Mullins-Sweatt ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Borderline Personality ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Categorical Diagnosis

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is one of the most studied personality disorders and is associated with significant outcomes such as suicide. Although BPD is represented in DSM-5 as a categorical diagnosis, it may be better characterized dimensionally, such as from the perspective of the five-factor model of general personality (FFM). The Five-Factor Borderline Inventory (FFBI) assesses BPD from the perspective of maladaptive variants of FFM traits. Previous research suggests that informant-reports may increase the validity of personality disorder assessment, providing additional information that may supplement self-report. Therefore, the current study developed an informant measure of the FFBI, Informant Five-Factor Borderline Inventory (IFFBI) and examined its convergent and discriminant validity compared with the self-report FFBI, FFM, and traditional measure of BPD. Overall, the IFFBI demonstrated good convergent validity and moderate discriminant validity with the FFBI, FFM, and other traditional measures of BPD.

Convergent and discriminant validity of personality disorder prototypic acts.

1990 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Katherine Freiman ◽  
Becky Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity

What Does the Implicit Association Test Measure? A Test of the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Prejudice-Related IATs

2002 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertram Gawronski
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Association Test ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Association Test ◽  
Recent Criticism ◽  
Implicit Association ◽  
East Asians ◽  
Student Sample ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Explicit Prejudice ◽  
Turkish People

Abstract. Drawing on recent criticism of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), the present study tested the convergent and discriminant validity of two prejudice-related IATs to corresponding explicit prejudice measures in a German student sample (N = 61). Confirming convergent validity, (a) an IAT designed to assess negative associations related to Turkish people was significantly related to the explicit endorsement of prejudiced beliefs about Turkish people, and (b) an IAT designed to assess negative associations related to East Asians was significantly related to explicit prejudice against East Asians. Moreover, confirming discriminant validity, (c) the Asian IAT was unrelated to the explicit endorsement of prejudiced beliefs about Turkish people, and (d) the Turkish IAT was unrelated to explicit prejudice against Asian people. These results further corroborate the assumption that the IAT is a valid method to assess the strength of evaluative associations in the domain of prejudice and stereotypes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document