Christopher J. Hopwood

How Should the Internal Structure of Personality Inventories Be Evaluated

Personality trait inventories often perform poorly when their structure is evaluated with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The authors demonstrate poor CFA fit for several widely used personality measures with documented evidence of criterion-related validity but also show that some measures perform well from an exploratory factor analytic perspective. In light of these results, the authors suggest that the failure of these measures to fit CFA models is because of the inherent complexity of personality, issues related to its measurement, and issues related to the application and interpretation of CFA models. This leads to three recommendations for researchers interested in the structure and assessment of personality traits: (a) utilize and report on a range of factor analytic methods, (b) avoid global evaluations regarding the internal validity of multiscale personality measures based on model fit according to conventional CFA cutoffs, and (c) consider the substantive and practical implications of model modifications designed to improve fit.

The Hierarchical Structure of DSM-5 Pathological Personality Traits

A multidimensional trait system has been proposed for representing personality disorder (PD) features in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) to address problematic classification issues such as comorbidity. In this model, which may also assist in providing scaffolding for the underlying structure of major forms of psychopathology more generally, 25 primary traits are organized by 5 higher order dimensions: Negative Affect, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. We examined (a) the generalizability of the structure proposed for DSM-5 PD traits, and (b) the potential for an integrative hierarchy based upon DSM-5 PD traits to represent the dimensions scaffolding psychopathology more generally. A large sample of student participants (N = 2,461) completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5, which operationalizes the DSM-5 traits. Exploratory factor analysis replicated the initially reported 5-factor structure, as indicated by high factor congruencies. The 2-, 3-, and 4-factor solutions estimated in the hierarchy of the DSM-5 traits bear close resemblance to existing models of common mental disorders, temperament, and personality pathology. Thus, beyond the description of individual differences in personality disorder, the trait dimensions might provide a framework for the metastructure of psychopathology in the DSM-5 and the integration of a number of ostensibly competing models of personality trait covariation.

The Convergent Structure of DSM-5 Personality Trait Facets and Five-Factor Model Trait Domains

The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorder Work Group have proposed diagnosing personality disorder based in part on 25 pathological traits. Initial research suggests that five factors explain the covariance among these traits and that these factors reflect the domains of the well-validated Five-Factor Model (FFM) of normative personality. This finding is important because it signifies the potential to apply normative trait research to personality disorder classification in the DSM-5. In this study, trait scale scores on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and domain scores from the FFM Rating Form (FFMRF) were subjected to a conjoint exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to test the higher-order convergence of the DSM-5 pathological trait model and the FFM in a nonclinical sample (N = 808). Results indicate that the five higher-order factors of the conjoint EFA reflect the domains of the FFM. The authors briefly discuss implications of this correspondence between the normative FFM and the pathological PID-5.

DSM-5 Personality Traits and DSM-IV Personality Disorders

Two issues pertinent to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) proposal for personality pathology, the recovery of DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs) by proposed DSM-5 traits and the validity of the proposed DSM-5 hybrid model, which incorporates both personality pathology symptoms and maladaptive traits, were evaluated in a large undergraduate sample (N = 808). Proposed DSM-5 traits as assessed with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 explained a substantial proportion of variance in DSM-IV PDs as assessed with the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+, and trait indicators of the 6 proposed DSM-5 PDs were mostly specific to those disorders with some exceptions. Regression analyses support the DSM-5 hybrid model in that pathological traits, and an indicator of general personality pathology severity provided incremental information about PDs. Findings are discussed in the context of broader issues around the proposed DSM-5 model of personality disorders.

Personality Assessment in DSM--5: Empirical support for rating Severity, Style, and Traits

Despite a general consensus that dimensional models are superior to the categorical representations of personality disorders in DSM-IV, proposals for how to depict personality pathology dimensions vary substantially. One important question involves how to separate clinical severity from the style of expression through which personality pathology manifests. This study empirically distinguished stylistic elements of personality pathology symptoms from the overall severity of personality disorder in a large, longitudinally assessed clinical sample (N = 605). Data suggest that generalized severity is the most important single predictor of current and prospective dysfunction, but that stylistic elements also indicate specific areas of difficulty. Normative personality traits tend to relate to the general propensity for personality pathology, but not stylistic elements of personality disorders. Overall, findings support a three-stage diagnostic strategy involving a global rating of personality disorder severity, ratings of parsimonious and discriminant valid stylistic elements of personality disorder, and ratings of normative personality traits.

Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders.

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.

Genetic and environmental influences on personality trait stability and growth during the transition to adulthood: A three wave longitudinal study

During the transition to adulthood individuals typically settle into adult roles in love and work. This transition also involves significant changes in personality traits that are generally in the direction of greater maturity and increased stability. Competing hypotheses have been offered to account for these personality changes: The intrinsic maturation hypothesis suggests that change trajectories are endogenous, whereas the life-course hypothesis suggests that these changes occur because of transactions with the social environment. This study investigated the patterns and origins of personality trait changes from ages 17 to 29 using 3 waves of Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire data provided by twins. Results suggest that (a) trait changes were more profound in the first relative to the second half of the transition to adulthood; (b) traits tend to become more stable during the second half of this transition, with all the traits yielding retest correlations between .74 and .78; (c) Negative Affectivity declined over time, and Constraint increased over time; minimal change was observed on agentic or communal aspects of Positive Emotionality; and (d) both genetic and nonshared environmental factors accounted for personality changes. Overall, these genetically informed results support a life-course perspective on personality development during the transition to adulthood.

A comparison of three self-report measures of the broader autism phenotype in a non-clinical sample.

Three self-report measures of the broader autism phenotype (BAP) were evaluated in terms of their internal consistency, distribution of scores, factor structure, and criterion-related validity in a non-clinical sample. All measures showed a continuous distribution. The SRS-A and BAPQ showed expected sex differences and were superior to the AQ in terms of internal consistency. The proposed factor structure of the BAPQ replicated better than the proposed structures of the other measures. All measures showed evidence of criterion validity via correlations with related constructs and each measure incremented the others in predicting related constructs. However, the SRS-A and BAPQ were generally stronger in this domain. Recommendations for the use of these instruments for measuring the BAP in non-clinical populations are discussed.

A Comparison of Interview and Self-Report Methods for the Assessment of Borderline Personality Disorder Criteria

Interview methods are widely regarded as the standard for the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD), whereas self-report methods are considered a time-efficient alternative. However, the relative validity of these methods has not been sufficiently tested. The current study used data from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality disorder Study to compare diagnostic base rates and the relative validity of interview and self-report methods for assessing functional outcome in BPD. Although self-report yielded higher base rates of criteria endorsement, results did not support the common assumption that diagnostic interviews are more valid than self-reports, but instead indicated the combined use of these methods optimally identifies BPD criteria.

Moderation and Mediation in Structural Equation Modeling: Applications for Early Intervention Research:

Second-generation early intervention research typically involves the specification of multivariate relations between interventions, outcomes, and other variables. Moderation and mediation involve variables or sets of variables that influence relations between interventions and outcomes. Following the framework of Baron and Kennys (1986) seminal paper, this paper differentiates moderation and mediation conceptually and methodologically. Four cases of moderation defined by the scale of predictor and moderator variable scales are described, and several design and statistical issues associated with testing mediation are discussed. Use of structural equation modeling is proposed to address some of the difficulties in testing moderation and mediation effects. A hypothetical early intervention data set is used to discuss and demonstrate the use of structural equation modeling for examining moderation and mediation.