Joshua D. Miller

The validity of the five-factor model prototypes for personality disorders in two clinical samples.

The authors examined the validity of D. R. Lynam and T. A. Widigers (2001) prototypes for personality disorders (PDs) derived from the facets of the 5-factor model (FFM) of personality in 2 clinical samples. In the 1st sample (N = 94), there was good agreement between the prototypes generated by experts and the profiles reported by patients. These FFM PD similarity scores also demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity with results from a semistructured interview and a self-report measure of Axis II pathology. In the 2nd sample (N = 132), the FFM PD similarity scores demonstrated excellent longitudinal stability and good predictive validity with regard to consensus ratings of PD features. The implications of these findings are discussed.

A Simplified Technique for Scoring DSM-IV Personality Disorders with the Five-Factor Model.

The current study compares the use of two alternative methodologies for using the Five-Factor Model (FFM) to assess personality disorders (PDs). Across two clinical samples, a technique using the simple sum of selected FFM facets is compared with a previously used prototype matching technique. The results demonstrate that the more easily calculated counts perform as well as the similarity scores that are generated by the prototype matching technique. Optimal diagnostic thresholds for the FFM PD counts are computed for identifying patients who meet diagnostic criteria for a specific PD. These threshold scores demonstrate good sensitivity in receiver operating characteristics analyses, suggesting their usefulness for screening purposes. Given the ease of this scoring procedure, the FFM count technique has obvious clinical utility.

Five-Factor Model Prototypes for Personality Disorders The Utility of Self-Reports and Observer Ratings

The current study examined the prototype-matching technique for using the five-factor model (FFM) of personality to assess personality disorders (PDs) and their correlates. The sample was composed of 69 psychiatric patients, most of whom suffered from affective or anxiety disorders. The participants were predominantly outpatients (78%), Caucasian (94%), and women (58%). NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) data from these patients and informants were available for deriving PD prototype scores. The results supported four conclusions. First, the FFM prototype-matching method is useful for clinical samples. Second, agreement between self-reports and information from significant others (SOs) using this method is good compared to previous results. Third, this agreement varies systematically with the observability of the PD criteria. Fourth, the value of self- and other-reported personality information depends on the rating source of the outcome variables. Other-reported information provides incremental utility in predicting impairment and interpersonal distress rated by clinicians and significant others.

A Comparison of the Validity of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) Personality Disorder Prototypes Using FFM Self-Report and Interview Measures.

Recent studies have demonstrated that personality disorders (PDs) can be assessed via a prototype-matching technique, which enables researchers and clinicians to match an individuals five-factor model (FFM) personality profile to an expert-generated prototype. The current study examined the relations between these prototype scores, using interview and self-report data, and PD symptoms in an outpatient sample (N = 115). Both sets of PD prototype scores demonstrated significant convergent validity with PD symptom counts, suggesting that the FFM PD prototype scores are appropriate for use with both sources of data.