Exploring the Hierarchical Structure of the MMPI–2–RF Personality Psychopathology Five in Psychiatric Patient and University Student Samples

In this study our goal was to examine the hierarchical structure of personality pathology as conceptualized by Harkness and McNulty's (1994) Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5) model, as recently operationalized by the MMPI–2–RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2011) PSY–5r scales. We used Goldberg's (2006) “bass-ackwards” method to obtain factor structure using PSY–5r item data, successively extracting from 1 to 5 factors in a sample of psychiatric patients (n = 1,000) and a sample of university undergraduate students (n = 1,331). Participants from these samples had completed either the MMPI–2 or the MMPI–2–RF. The results were mostly consistent across the 2 samples, with some differences at the 3-factor level. In the patient sample a factor structure representing 3 broad psychopathology domains (internalizing, externalizing, and psychoticism) emerged; in the student sample the 3-factor level represented what is more commonly observed in “normal-range” personality models (negative emotionality, introversion, and disconstraint). At the 5-factor level the basic structure was similar across the 2 samples and represented well the PSY–5r domains.     

Differentiating Bipolar Disorder from Major Depressive Disorder Using the MMPI-2-RF: A Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) Analysis

We examined the utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) to differentiate patients with lifetime bipolar disorder (BD) from patients with lifetime major depressive disorder (MDD), and to differentiate patients with BD who are currently depressed from patients with current MDD. Sixty-one patients with BD (BD-I n = 51, BD-II n = 10) and 381 patients with MDD were administered the MMPI-2; MMPI-2-RF scale scores were derived from these MMPI-2 protocols. Receiver operating characteristics analysis revealed that the MMPI-2-RF Activation (ACT) scale had the largest Area Under the Curve (AUC), which was 0.74. Using a cut-off score of 4 on the ACT scale resulted in 71% of patients being correctly classified as having BD or MDD (sensitivity = 0.67, specificity = 0.71). An examination of currently depressed patients with BD (n = 29) and a randomly selected sample of MDD patients (n = 29) revealed that the ACT scale correctly classified 72% of patients (AUC = 0.75, sensitivity = 0.69, specificity = 0.76). Implications and limitations of these findings were discussed.     

Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five

Factor analyses of 75 facet scales from 2 major Big Five inventories, in the Eugene-Springfield community sample (N=481), produced a 2-factor solution for the 15 facets in each domain. These findings indicate the existence of 2 distinct (but correlated) aspects within each of the Big Five, representing an intermediate level of personality structure between facets and domains. The authors characterized these factors in detail at the item level by correlating factor scores with the International Personality Item Pool (L. R. Goldberg, 1999). These correlations allowed the construction of a 100-item measure of the 10 factors (the Big Five Aspect Scales [BFAS]), which was validated in a 2nd sample (N=480). Finally, the authors examined the correlations of the 10 factors with scores derived from 10 genetic factors that a previous study identified underlying the shared variance among the Revised NEO Personality Inventory facets (K. L. Jang et al., 2002). The correspondence was strong enough to suggest that the 10 aspects of the Big Five may have distinct biological substrates.     

Reexamining the factor structure of the 20-item Toronto alexithymia scale: commentary on Gignac, Palmer, and Stough

Gignac, Palmer, and Stough (2007/this issue) test a number of different latent factor models for the TAS-20 using a community sample of 355 participants and conclude that this scale is best represented by a "nested factors model," with five substantive factors and a method factor. Gignac et al. also report that the correlated three-factor model and a comparable higher order model supported by most studies produced poor levels of incremental close fit. In this article, we challenge Gignac et al.'s unheralded and largely unsupported use of nested model fitting and the uncritical acceptance of exceptionally high cutoff levels to assess goodness of fit (GOF). Using more traditional and empirically supported model testing procedures and a more flexible approach to the interpretation of multiple tests of GOF, we interpret Gignac et al.'s results as actually supportive of the traditional three-factor model and one that has been recovered in 17 of the 24 factor analytic studies of the TAS-20.     

Openness to Experience,Intellect, and Cognitive Ability

An instrument designed to separate 2 midlevel traits within each of the Big Five (the Big Five Aspect Scales [BFAS]) was used to clarify the relation of personality to cognitive ability. The BFAS measures Openness to Experience and Intellect as separate (although related) traits, and refers to the broader Big Five trait as Openness/Intellect. In 2 samples (N = 125 and 189), Intellect was independently associated with general intelligence (g) and with verbal and nonverbal intelligence about equally. Openness was independently associated only with verbal intelligence. Implications of these findings are discussed for the empirical and conceptual relations of intelligence to personality and for the mechanisms potentially underlying both Openness/Intellect and cognitive ability.     

An Examination of the Topology and Measurement of the Alexithymia Construct Using Network Analysis

There is some ongoing controversy surrounding the definition and measurement of the alexithymia construct. Whereas most researchers describe 4 components comprising the construct (difficulty identifying feelings, difficulty describing feelings, restricted fantasizing, and externally oriented thinking), some include a 5th component, which is defined as “reduced experiencing of emotional feelings.” This study examined the topology and measurement of alexithymia using the method of network analysis with data from a heterogeneous multilanguage sample (N = 1,696) that had completed the Bermond–Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire (BVAQ; Vorst &; Bermond, 2001 Vorst, H. C. M., &; Bermond, B. (2001). Validity and reliability of the Bermond–Vorst Alexithymia Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 413–434. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00033-7[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The BVAQ includes an Emotionalizing subscale for assessing the purported 5th component; we compared the network analyses conducted both with and without the Emotionalizing items. The results revealed strong associations between Emotionalizing and Analyzing (externally oriented thinking) items, but Emotionalizing items had almost as many negative as positive connections with items assessing the other components of the construct. A comparison of communities identified by modularity analyses of the 2 networks failed to support emotionalizing as a distinct component of the construct. In addition, network metrics revealed that Fantasizing items were particularly weak within both networks, suggesting that reduced fantasizing might be a peripheral component of the alexithymia construct. Implications for the measurement and treatment of alexithymia are discussed.     

Openness to Experience and Intellect Differentially Predict Creative Achievement in the Arts and Sciences

The Big Five personality dimension Openness/Intellect is the trait most closely associated with creativity and creative achievement. Little is known, however, regarding the discriminant validity of its two aspects—Openness to Experience (reflecting cognitive engagement with perception, fantasy, aesthetics, and emotions) and Intellect (reflecting cognitive engagement with abstract and semantic information, primarily through reasoning)—in relation to creativity. In four demographically diverse samples totaling 1,035 participants, we investigated the independent predictive validity of Openness and Intellect by assessing the relations among cognitive ability, divergent thinking, personality, and creative achievement across the arts and sciences. We confirmed the hypothesis that whereas Openness predicts creative achievement in the arts, Intellect predicts creative achievement in the sciences. Inclusion of performance measures of general cognitive ability and divergent thinking indicated that the relation of Intellect to scientific creativity may be due at least in part to these abilities. Lastly, we found that Extraversion additionally predicted creative achievement in the arts, independently of Openness. Results are discussed in the context of dual‐process theory.     

Reexamining the Factor Structure of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: Commentary on Gignac,Palmer, and Stough

Gignac, Palmer, and Stough (2007/this issue) test a number of different latent factor models for the TAS–20 using a community sample of 355 participants and conclude that this scale is best represented by a “nested factors model,” with five substantive factors and a method factor. Gignac et al. also report that the correlated three-factor model and a comparable higher order model supported by most studies produced poor levels of incremental close fit. In this article, we challenge Gignac et al.'s unheralded and largely unsupported use of nested model fitting and the uncritical acceptance of exceptionally high cutoff levels to assess goodness of fit (GOF). Using more traditional and empirically supported model testing procedures and a more flexible approach to the interpretation of multiple tests of GOF, we interpret Gignac et al.'s results as actually supportive of the traditional three-factor model and one that has been recovered in 17 of the 24 factor analytic studies of the TAS–20.