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 individual's 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.     

Self- and other-reports of traits from the five-factor model: relations to personality disorder

The current study used a psychiatric sample (N = 69) to examine: (1) the correspondence between self- and other-reports of general personality, as measured by the Five-Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1990), and personality disorder (PD) traits, as measured by a structured interview, (2) the relations between these two sets of ratings (FFM and PD traits) and consensus ratings of PD and impairment, and (3) the incremental validity of other-rated personality scores. Agreement between raters for the five domains of the FFM ranged from .23 (agreeableness) to .71 (openness); for the PD traits agreement ranged from .37 (avoidant) to .69 (antisocial). At both the domain and facet level, the personality profiles reflected in the correlations between the FFM scores and PD criteria were consistent across raters with the exception of narcissistic PD. Substantial evidence was found for the incremental validity of other-rated personality scores, with these ratings accounting for an additional 8 to 20% of the overall variance in PD features. The other-rated FFM scores also accounted for more variance in consensus ratings of impairment in the domains of romance, work, and social relations.     

The convergent and concurrent validity of trait-based prototype assessment of personality disorder categories in homeless persons

The DSM-5 proposal indicates that personality disorders (PDs) be defined as collections of maladaptive traits but does not provide a specific diagnostic method. However, researchers have previously suggested that PD constructs can be assessed by comparing individuals' trait profiles with those prototypic of PDs and evidence from the five-factor model (FFM) suggests that these prototype matching scores converge moderately with traditional PD instruments. The current study investigates the convergence of FFM PD prototypes with interview-assigned PD diagnoses in a sample of 99 homeless individuals. This sample had very high rates of PDs, which extends previous research on samples with more modest prevalence rates. Results indicated that diagnostic agreement between these methods was generally low but consistent with the agreement previously observed between explicit PD measures. Furthermore, trait-based and diagnostic interview scores evinced similar relationships with clinically important indicators such as abuse history and past suicide attempts. These findings demonstrate the validity of prototype methods and suggest their consideration for assessing trait-defined PD types within DSM-5.     

Scoring the DSM-IV personality disorders using the Five-Factor Model: development and validation of normative scores for North American, French, and Dutch-Flemish samples

Five-Factor Model (FFM) personality disorder (PD) counts have demonstrated significant convergent and discriminant validity with DSM-IV PD symptoms. However, these FFM PD counts are of limited clinical use without normative data because it is difficult to determine what a specific score means with regard to the relative level of elevation. The current study presents data from three large normative samples that can be used as norms for the FFM PD counts in the respective countries: United States (N = 1,000), France (N = 801), and Belgium-Netherlands (N = 549). The present study also examines the performance, with regard to diagnostic efficiency, of statistically-defined cut-offs at 1.5 standard deviations above the mean (T > or = 65) versus previously identified cut-offs using receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) analyses. These cut-offs are tested in three clinical samples-one from each of the aforementioned countries. In general, the T > or = 65 cut-offs performed similarly to those identified using ROC analyses and manifested properties relevant to a screening instrument. These normative data allow FFM data to be used in a flexible and comprehensive manner, which may include scoring this type of personality data in order to screen for DSM-IV PD constructs.     

Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: development and validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment

A new self-report assessment of the basic traits of psychopathy was developed with a general trait model of personality (five-factor model [FFM]) as a framework. Scales were written to assess maladaptive variants of the 18 FFM traits that are robustly related to psychopathy across a variety of perspectives including empirical correlations, expert ratings, and translations of extant assessments. Across 3 independent undergraduate samples (N = 210-354), the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA) scales proved to be internally consistent and unidimensional, and were strongly related to the original FFM scales from which they were derived (mean convergent r = .66). The EPA scales also demonstrated substantial incremental validity in the prediction of existing psychopathy measures over their FFM counterparts. When summed to form a psychopathy total score, the EPA was substantially correlated with 3 commonly used psychopathy measures (mean r = .81). Finally, in a small male forensic sample (N = 70), the EPA was significantly correlated with scores on a widely used self-report psychopathy measure, disciplinary infractions, alcohol use, and antisocial behavior. The EPA provides an opportunity to examine psychopathy and its nomological network through smaller, more basic units of personality rather than by scales or factors that blend these elements.     

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.     

Validation of the Five-Factor Model Personality Disorder Prototype Counts with the Personality Assessment Inventory

Five-factor model (FFM) personality disorder (PD) prototype scores drawn from the revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) have demonstrated strong convergent validity with clinical measures of PD (Miller in Journal of Personality, 80, 1565–1591, 2012). However, an examination of the relations between the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey 1991), which is widely used in personality assessment research, and the FFM PD prototype “count” method, has not been conducted. The present study examines the convergent validity of the FFM borderline, antisocial, and psychopathy prototype counts with the Borderline Features (BOR) and Antisocial Features (ANT) full scales and subscales from the PAI. Furthermore, the BOR and ANT scales are correlated with all 30 NEO-PI-3 facets to empirically evaluate the rationally-selected facet scales used in the borderline, antisocial, and psychopathy PD counts. Five hundred thirty-five undergraduate students completed both the NEO-PI-3 and the PAI. The PD counts demonstrated strong convergent and discriminant validity with the PAI clinical scales. Facet-level analyses generally supported the structure of the PD count formulas, and the exceptions align with previous evidence that the Competence, Dutifulness, and Self-Discipline facets (from the Conscientiousness domain of the FFM) associate strongly with the BOR scale.     

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.     

Borderline and avoidant personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: a comparison between DSM-IV diagnoses and NEO-PI-R.

A self-report measure of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality, NEO-PI-R, was administered to a sample of patients with borderline (BPD, N = 29) or avoidant PD (AVPD, N = 34), admitted to a day treatment program, to investigate the NEO-PI-R profiles of the disorders, and the ability of NEO-PI-R to discriminate between the two disorders. The diagnoses were assessed according to the LEAD standard. AVPD was associated with high levels of Neuroticism and Agreeableness, and low levels of Extraversion and Conscientiousness. BPD was associated with high levels of Neuroticism and low levels of Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. Eighty-eight percent of the AVPD group had high scores on Neuroticism and low scores on Extraversion, whereas 65% of the BPD group were high on Neuroticism and low on Agreeableness. The Extraversion and Agreeableness scales of NEO-PI-R discriminated between patients with BPD and those with AVPD. Patients with BPD scored significantly higher on the Angry Hostility and Impulsiveness subscales of Neuroticism and significantly lower on three Extraversion subscales, three Agreeableness subscales, and one Conscientiousness subscale. At the DSM-IV criterion level, there were more significant relationships between the subscales of NEO-PI-R and the AVPD criteria than with the BPD criteria. The findings suggest that the FFM has good discriminating ability regarding BPD and AVPD. However, there may be a closer conceptual relationship between the FFM and AVPD than between the FFM and BPD.     

Five-factor measure of borderline personality traits

This study provides psychometric data for a new self-report measure of borderline personality traits from the perspective of the Five-factor model (FFM) of general personality. Subscales were constructed in an undergraduate sample (n = 109) to assess maladaptive variants of 12 FFM traits (e.g., Affective Dysregulation as a maladaptive variant of FFM Vulnerability). On the basis of data from a second undergraduate sample (n = 111), the Five Factor Borderline Inventory (FFBI) subscales were shown to have good internal consistency, convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity. These psychometric results were replicated in a clinical sample of female residents at a substance abuse treatment facility (n = 94).     

A meta‐analysis of psychopathy‐, antisocial PD‐ and FFM associations

This research meta‐analytically summarizes the relationships of the Five‐Factor Model (FFM) with psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). Effect sizes of the associations between psychopathy, APD and the FFM were compiled from 26 independent samples (N = 6913) for psychopathy and 57 independent samples (N = 16 424) for APD. The results revealed predominantly points of similarity and some differences in the FFM associations of both disorders. Symptoms of psychopathy and APD were negatively associated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness facets and positively with scores on Angry–Hostility (N2), Impulsiveness (N5), Excitement Seeking (E5) and negatively with Warmth (E1). Only psychopathy had a small negative association with Anxiety (N1) and was characterized by stronger negative associations with Agreeableness and Straightforwardness (A2), Compliance (A4) and Modesty (A5) compared to APD. The moderator analyses showed that sample type, use of the NEO‐PI‐R and APD instrument moderated the APD FFM associations, while psychopathy instrument and age group were moderators in the psychopathy MA. Implications of this research for the assessment of APD and psychopathy relying on dimensional models of personality pathology are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Dimensional personality profiles of borderline personality disorder in comparison with other personality disorders and healthy controls

The present study examined the sensitivity and clinical specificity of dimensional personality profiles associated with borderline personality disorder (BPD) by comparing three groups of patients: (a) patients with BPD according to DSM-IV criteria (n = 31); (b) patients with other DSM-IV PD (n = 31); and (c) general population controls (n = 31). All three samples were matched for age and gender and the two patient samples were matched for chronicity and depressive symptoms. All patients were given the Six-Factor Test measuring the five-factor model of personality (FFM), the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI), and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP). Nonparametric statistics were applied to analyze the data (Mann-Whitney-U-tests for group comparisons; Spearman's coefficients for correlational analyses). Neuroticism (FFM), Self-Directedness (TCI), and Emotional Dysregulation (DAPP) were identified as general markers of personality pathology, which were significantly interrelated in all three samples. BPD patients also showed a specific profile compared with other PD patients with lower scores on Agreeableness (FFM), higher scores on Novelty Seeking and Self-Transcendence (TCI), and higher scores on the DAPP higher-order dimensions of Emotional Dysregulation, Dissocial Behavior, and Inhibitedness. Results support the assumption that BPD can be characterized by dimensional approaches with sufficient sensitivity in comparison with healthy controls and specificity in comparison with other PD patients.     

Five-Factor Measure of Borderline Personality Traits

This study provides psychometric data for a new self-report measure of borderline personality traits from the perspective of the Five-factor model (FFM) of general personality. Subscales were constructed in an undergraduate sample (n = 109) to assess maladaptive variants of 12 FFM traits (e.g., Affective Dysregulation as a maladaptive variant of FFM Vulnerability). On the basis of data from a second undergraduate sample (n = 111), the Five Factor Borderline Inventory (FFBI) subscales were shown to have good internal consistency, convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity. These psychometric results were replicated in a clinical sample of female residents at a substance abuse treatment facility (n = 94).     

Evaluation of the SCID-II personality disorder traits for DSM-IV: coherence, discrimination, relations with general personality traits, and functional impairment

The utility of the DSM personality disorder (PD) system remains a concern. The strategy employed represents one approach designed to evaluate and improve the diagnostic efficiency of the SCID-II PDs. Using a sample of 203 patients, SCID-II PD items-based on the criterion sets of the 10 DSM-IV PDs-were evaluated with respect to (a) convergent validity; (b) divergent validity; (c) relation to general personality traits; and (d) association with functional impairment. Only Borderline PD items were satisfactory on all four evaluation criteria. Histrionic and Obsessive-Compulsive PD items met criteria for convergent and divergent validity and relation to personality dimensions of the Five-Factor Model of Personality (FFM) but were not related to functional impairment, suggesting they might be reconsidered as disorders. Schizotypal PD items met three of the four criteria but showed no relation to FFM dimensions, suggesting that it may be a candidate for reassignment to Axis I.     

Spirituality: description, measurement, and relation to the five factor model of personality

The present article focused on the development and measurement of a factor model of the expressions of spirituality. Study 1 (N = 534) involved the use of factor analysis to examine the latent factor structure in a sample of 11 measures of spiritual constructs. Study 2 (N = 938) focused on the replication of Study 1 results and on the construction and initial validation of an instrument to operationalize the factor model of spirituality. Results indicate that at least 5 robust dimensions of spirituality underlie the spirituality test domain. These dimensions were labeled Cognitive Orientation Towards Spirituality (COS), Experiential/Phenomenological Dimension (EPD), Existential Well-Being (EW-B), Paranormal Beliefs (PAR), and Religiousness (REL). The measure developed, named the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI), takes the form of a 98-item instrument that generated scores demonstrating satisfactory reliability and adequate initial validity. Examination of the relation of spirituality to the Five Factor Model (FFM) as measured by the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised revealed that the dimensions of the FFM appear to differentially relate to the major elements of spirituality but are nevertheless conceptually unique, pointing to the possible existence of major aspects of personality not represented in the FFM.     

Cross-cultural replication of the five-factor model and comparison of the NEO-PI-R and MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales in a Dutch psychiatric sample

The authors investigated cross-cultural replicability of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality as represented by the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) in a sample of 423 Dutch psychiatric patients. Also, NEO-PI-R domain scales were compared with the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5; A. R. Harkness & J. L. McNulty, 1994) scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (J. N. Butcher, W. G. Dahlstrom, J. R. Graham, A. Tellegen, & B. Kaemmer, 2002). Principal-components analysis with procrustean rotation confirmed the hypothesized structural similarity of the present sample with the U.S. normative factor scores. All of the hypothesized relations between NEO-PI-R and PSY-5 scales were confirmed. The results provide evidence for cross-cultural replicability of the FFM and for validity of the NEO-PI-R and PSY-5 constructs in the psychological assessment of psychiatric patients.     

Reliability and validity of the borderline personality disorder severity index

The psychometric properties and validity of the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index (BPDSI), a semistructured interview assessing the frequency and severity of manifestations of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) during a circumscribed period, were investigated in two studies. In study 1, patients with BPD (n = 15), with other personality disorders (PD; n = 18), and without Axis II disorders (but with Axis I disorders; n = 10) assessed with the SCID were interviewed with the BPDSI (1-yr. version). Patients also filled out a number of questionnaires. A second rater judged taped BPDSI interviews. The BPDSI appeared to yield highly reliable (ICC = .93) and internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha = .85) scores. The BPDSI strongly discriminated BPD patients from other patients, and was not related to other Axis II pathology. Concurrent and construct validity was excellent. In study 2, a version of the BPDSI suitable for use in treatment outcome research was investigated (3-month version) in a sample of 64 BPD patients, 23 Cluster C PD patients, and 20 nonpsychiatric controls. Again, reliability coefficients were excellent (ICC = 0.97; Cronbach's alpha = 0.93), and validity indices were good. Clinical norms were also derived. In a sample of 28 BPD patients, the instrument detected improvement during 6 months of psychotherapy.