Douglas B. Samuel

A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationships Between the Five-Factor Model and DSM-IV-TR Personality Disorders: A Facet Level Analysis

Theory and research have suggested that the personality disorders contained within the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) can be understood as maladaptive variants of the personality traits included within the five-factor model (FFM). The current meta-analysis of FFM personality disorder research both replicated and extended the 2004 work of Saulsman and Page (The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055-1085) through a facet level analysis that provides a more specific and nuanced description of each DSM-IV-TR personality disorder. The empirical FFM profiles generated for each personality disorder were generally congruent at the facet level with hypothesized FFM translations of the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders. However, notable exceptions to the hypotheses did occur and even some findings that were consistent with FFM theory could be said to be instrument specific.

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) : A Dimensional Alternative to Traditional Nosologies

The reliability and validity of traditional taxonomies are limited by arbitrary boundaries between psychopathology and normality, often unclear boundaries between disorders, frequent disorder co-occurrence, heterogeneity within disorders, and diagnostic instability. These taxonomies went beyond evidence available on the structure of psychopathology and were shaped by a variety of other considerations, which may explain the aforementioned shortcomings. The Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model has emerged as a research effort to address these problems. It constructs psychopathological syndromes and their components/subtypes based on the observed covariation of symptoms, grouping related symptoms together and thus reducing heterogeneity. It also combines co-occurring syndromes into spectra, thereby mapping out comorbidity. Moreover, it characterizes these phenomena dimensionally, which addresses boundary problems and diagnostic instability. Here, we review the development of the HiTOP and the relevant evidence. The new classification already covers most forms of psychopathology. Dimensional measures have been developed to assess many of the identified components, syndromes, and spectra. Several domains of this model are ready for clinical and research applications. The HiTOP promises to improve research and clinical practice by addressing the aforementioned shortcomings of traditional nosologies. It also provides an effective way to summarize and convey information on risk factors, etiology, pathophysiology, phenomenology, illness course, and treatment response. This can greatly improve the utility of the diagnosis of mental disorders. The new classification remains a work in progress. However, it is developing rapidly and is poised to advance mental health research and care significantly as the relevant science matures.

Psychometric Properties of an Abbreviated Instrument of the Five-Factor Model

Brief measures of the five-factor model (FFM) have been developed but none include an assessment of facets within each domain. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of a simple, one-page, facet-level description of the FFM. Five data collections were completed to assess the reliability and the convergent and discriminant validity of the rating form with other measures of the FFM and to replicate correlations with measures of maladaptive personality functioning that have been obtained with more extensive measures. Results appeared to support the validity of the FFM rating form (FFMRF) because it obtained relatively good internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. In addition, self-descriptions of persons in terms of the FFMRF related to maladaptive personality traits in a manner that was consistent with theoretical expectations. Negative findings and limitations of the rating form also are discussed.

Evidence-Based Assessment of Personality Disorders

The purpose of this article is to provide a foundation for the development of evidence-based guidelines for the assessment of personality disorders, focusing in particular on integrated assessment strategies. The general strategy recommended herein is to first administer a self-report inventory to alert oneself to the potential presence of particular maladaptive personality traits followed by a semistructured interview to verify their presence. This strategy is guided by the existing research that suggests particular strengths of self-report inventories and semistructured interviews relative to unstructured clinical interviews. However, the authors also consider research that suggests that further improvements to the existing instruments can be made. The authors emphasize, in particular, a consideration of age of onset, distortions in self-perception and presentation, gender bias, culture and ethnicity, and personality change.

Clinicians' judgments of clinical utility: a comparison of the DSM-IV and five-factor models.

Clinical utility, or the usefulness of a diagnostic system in clinical practice, has been identified as an important construct in proposed revisions to the diagnostic nomenclature and a significant limitation of dimensional models of personality disorder, such as the 5-factor model (FFM). Only 1 study to date has addressed explicitly the clinical utility of the FFM, and the findings suggested significant limitations. In the current study, 245 practicing psychologists described 3 historic cases using both the FFM and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and then rated each model on 6 aspects of clinical utility. In contrast to prior research, the psychologists in this study considered the FFM to have greater clinical utility than the existing diagnostic categories.

Convergence of Narcissism Measures from the Perspective of General Personality Functioning.

The construct of narcissism has a lengthy history and has been operationalized and measured by a variety of instruments. In this study, five narcissism scales were compared in terms of alternative conceptualizations of narcissism offered by C. C. Morf and F. Rhodewalt (2001), D. L. Paulhus (2001), and S. Vazire and D. C. Funder (2006), using the domains and facets of the five-factor model as a common point of comparison. The findings provided little support for the conceptualizations of Morf and Rhodewalt or Vazire and Funder. Support was obtained for the conceptualization of Paulhus, particularly as assessed by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and, secondarily, the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory—III. Implications for the assessment and conceptualization of narcissism are discussed.

Conscientiousness and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

A dimensional perspective on personality disorder hypothesizes that the current diagnostic categories represent maladaptive variants of general personality traits. However, a fundamental foundation of this viewpoint is that dimensional models can adequately account for the pathology currently described by these categories. While most of the personality disorders have well established links to dimensional models that buttress this hypothesis, obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) has obtained only inconsistent support. The current study administered multiple measures of 1) conscientiousness-related personality traits, 2) DSM-IV OCPD, and 3) specific components of OCPD (e.g., compulsivity and perfectionism) to a sample of 536 undergraduates who were oversampled for elevated OCPD scores. Six existing measures of conscientiousness-related personality traits converged strongly with each other supporting their assessment of a common trait. These measures of conscientiousness correlated highly with scales assessing specific components of OCPD, but obtained variable relationships with measures of DSM-IV OCPD. More specifically, there were differences within the conscientiousness instruments such that those designed to assess general personality functioning had small to medium relationships with OCPD, but those assessing more maladaptive variants obtained large effect sizes. These findings support the view that OCPD does represent a maladaptive variant of normal-range conscientiousness.

Differential Item Functioning on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire Is Minimal in Demographically Matched Meditators and Nonmeditators

A recent study of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire reported high levels of differential item functioning (DIF) for 18 of its 39 items in meditating and nonmeditating samples that were not demographically matched. In particular, meditators were more likely to endorse positively worded items whereas nonmeditators were more likely to deny negatively worded (reverse-scored) items. The present study replicated these analyses in demographically matched samples of meditators and nonmeditators (n = 115 each) and found that evidence for DIF was minimal. There was little or no evidence for differential relationships between positively and negatively worded items for meditators and nonmeditators. Findings suggest that DIF based on items’ scoring direction is not problematic when the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire is used to compare demographically similar meditators and nonmeditators.

Ten-year rank-order stability of personality traits and disorders in a clinical sample.

OBJECTIVE This study compares the 10-year retest stability of normal traits, pathological traits, and personality disorder dimensions in a clinical sample. METHOD Ten-year rank-order stability estimates for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality, and Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders were evaluated before and after correcting for test-retest dependability and internal consistency in a clinical sample (N = 266). RESULTS Dependability-corrected stability estimates were generally in the range of.60-.90 for traits and.25-.65 for personality disorders. CONCLUSIONS The relatively lower stability of personality disorder symptoms may indicate important differences between pathological behaviors and relatively more stable self-attributed traits and imply that a full understanding of personality and personality pathology needs to take both traits and symptoms into account. The five-factor theory distinction between basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations provides a theoretical framework for the separation of traits and disorders in terms of stability in which traits reflect basic tendencies that are stable and pervasive across situations, whereas personality disorder symptoms reflect characteristic maladaptations that are a function of both basic tendencies and environmental dynamics.

DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: An item-response theory analysis.

Over the past two decades, evidence has suggested that personality disorders (PDs) can be conceptualized as extreme, maladaptive variants of general personality dimensions, rather than discrete categorical entities. Recognizing this literature, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) alternative PD model in Section III defines PDs partially through 25 maladaptive traits that fall within 5 domains. Empirical evidence based on the self-report measure of these traits, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), suggests that these five higher-order domains share a structure and correlate in meaningful ways with the five-factor model (FFM) of general personality. In the current study, item response theory was used to compare the DSM-5 alternative PD model traits to those from a normative FFM inventory (the International Personality Item Pool-NEO [IPIP-NEO]) in terms of their measurement precision along the latent dimensions. Within a combined sample of 3,517 participants, results strongly supported the conclusion that the DSM-5 alternative PD model traits and IPIP-NEO traits are complimentary measures of 4 of the 5 FFM domains (with perhaps the exception of openness to experience vs. psychoticism). Importantly, the two measures yield largely overlapping information curves on these four domains. Differences that did emerge suggested that the PID-5 scales generally have higher thresholds and provide more information at the upper levels, whereas the IPIP-NEO generally had an advantage at the lower levels. These results support the general conceptualization that 4 domains of the DSM-5 alternative PD model traits are maladaptive, extreme versions of the FFM. (PsycINFO Database Record