A Five-Factor Measure of Dependent Personality Traits

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of dependent personality traits from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM). Dependent personality trait scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of FFM facets (e.g., Gullibility as a maladaptive variant of FFM trust). Based on responses from 383 undergraduates, the convergent validity of the Five-Factor Dependency Inventory (FFDI) scales was tested with respect to 2 measures of the FFM, 6 dependency trait scales, and 4 measures of dependent personality disorder. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to FFM facets from alternative domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM dependent personality trait scales to account for variance in 2 established measures of dependency, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facet scales and other measures of DPD was first removed. The results of this study provided support for the validity of the FFDI assessment of dependency from the perspective of the FFM.     

The five-factor narcissism inventory: a five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of narcissistic personality traits created from the perspective of the Five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Fifteen scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of respective facets of the FFM (e.g., Reactive Anger as a narcissistic variant of angry hostility), with item selection made on the basis of a criterion-keying approach using results from 167 undergraduates. On the basis of data from 166 additional undergraduates, the convergent validity of these 15 scales was tested with respect to 8 established measures of narcissism (including measures of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism) and the respective facets of the FFM. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to facets from other FFM domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM narcissism trait scales to account for variance in 2 alternative measures of narcissism, after variance accounted for by respective NEO PI-R facet scales and other established measures of narcissism were first removed. The findings support the validity of these new scales as measures of narcissistic personality traits and as maladaptive variants of the FFM.     

A five-factor measure of schizotypal personality traits

The current study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of schizotypy from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Nine schizotypy scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of respective facets of the FFM (e.g., Aberrant Ideas as a maladaptive variant of FFM Openness to Ideas). On the basis of data from 143 undergraduates, the convergent validity of these nine scales was tested with respect to seven established measures of schizotypy and the respective facets of the FFM. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to facets from other FFM domains and components of schizotypy. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM schizotypy scales to account for variance in two established measures of schizotypy, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facets and other established measures of schizotypy were first removed. The findings support the validity of these new scales as measures of schizotypal traits and as maladaptive variants of the FFM.     

A five-factor measure of obsessive-compulsive personality traits

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for the Five-Factor Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (FFOCI), a newly developed measure of traits relevant to obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) from the perspective of the Five-factor model (FFM). Twelve scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of specific FFM facets (e.g., Perfectionism as a maladaptive variant of FFM competence). On the basis of data from 407 undergraduates (oversampled for OCPD symptoms) these 12 scales demonstrated convergent correlations with established measures of OCPD and the FFM. Further, they obtained strong discriminant validity with respect to facets from other FFM domains. Most important, the individual scales and total score of the FFOCI obtained incremental validity beyond existing measures of the FFM and OCPD for predicting a composite measure of obsessive-compulsive symptomatology. The findings support the validity of the FFOCI as a measure of obsessive-compulsive personality traits, as well as of maladaptive variants of the FFM.     

Measures to assess maladaptive variants of the five-factor model

The five-factor model (FFM) is the predominant dimensional model of general personality structure. A considerable body of research supports the hypothesis that personality disorders can be conceptualized as extreme or maladaptive variants of the domains and facets of the FFM. However, existing measures of the FFM are confined largely to the normal variants. The purpose of this special section of the Journal of Personality Assessment is to provide the development and initial validation of self-report inventory scales to assess obsessive-compulsive, borderline, narcissistic, avoidant, and dependent personality traits from the perspective of the FFM, which complement the similarly constructed existing measures for psychopathic, histrionic, and schizotypal personality traits.     

A Five-Factor Measure of Avoidant Personality: The FFAvA

A new self-report assessment of the basic traits of avoidant personality disorder (AVD) was developed using a general trait model of personality (Five-factor model; FFM) as a framework. Scales were written to assess maladaptive variants of 10 FFM traits found to be robustly related to AVD across a variety of methods. In a sample of 291 undergraduates, the scales from the Five Factor Avoidant Assessment (FFAvA) proved to be internally consistent and strongly related to the original FFM scales from which they were derived. The FFAvA scales also demonstrated substantial incremental validity in the prediction of existing AVD measures and indexes of social discomfort over their FFM counterparts. The FFAvA provides an opportunity to examine AVD and its correlates using smaller, more basic units of personality rather than more global symptoms that might blend these elements.     

A Five-Factor Measure of Avoidant Personality: The FFAvA

A new self-report assessment of the basic traits of avoidant personality disorder (AVD) was developed using a general trait model of personality (Five-factor model; FFM) as a framework. Scales were written to assess maladaptive variants of 10 FFM traits found to be robustly related to AVD across a variety of methods. In a sample of 291 undergraduates, the scales from the Five Factor Avoidant Assessment (FFAvA) proved to be internally consistent and strongly related to the original FFM scales from which they were derived. The FFAvA scales also demonstrated substantial incremental validity in the prediction of existing AVD measures and indexes of social discomfort over their FFM counterparts. The FFAvA provides an opportunity to examine AVD and its correlates using smaller, more basic units of personality rather than more global symptoms that might blend these elements.     

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.     

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).     

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.     

Maladaptive personality functioning within the big five and the five-factor model

The five-factor model (FFM) of general personality functioning was derived originally from lexical studies of trait terms within the English language. Many studies have been conducted on the relationship of the FFM to personality disorder symptomatology but, as yet, no lexical study of the representation of maladaptive personality functioning within a language has been conducted. The current study identified the distribution of socially undesirable trait terms within each of the poles of the Big Five and compared this distribution to findings obtained with FFM personality disorder measures. The implications of the results for a FFM of personality disorders and for the FFM assessment of maladaptive personality functioning are discussed.     

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).     

Dependent personality disorder: comparing an expert generated and empirically derived five-factor model personality disorder count

Assessment of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed.; DSM-IV ) personality disorders (PDs) using five-factor model (FFM) prototypes and counts has shown substantial promise, with a few exceptions. Miller, Reynolds, and Pilkonis suggested that the expert-generated FFM dependent prototype might be misspecified in relation to the DSM-IV because of the overemphasis of high Agreeableness and underemphasis of low Conscientiousness in the experts' conception. A meta-analytic review of the relations between the FFM facets and Dependent PD (DPD) was conducted and used to create a revised, empirically based FFM DPD profile and count. The revised profile and count were more strongly correlated with DSM and non-DSM conceptualizations of maladaptive dependency. In addition, the revised FFM DPD profile was able to recreate the patterns of comorbidity typically found when using DSM-IV measures of DPD. Possible explanations for the discrepancy between the expert ratings and the meta-analytic results are offered.     

Deconstructing dependency in a five-factor world: a meta-analytic review

Meta-analysis of studies assessing the relation between interpersonal dependency test scores and five-factor model (FFM) domain scores revealed that dependency scores are positively correlated with FFM Neuroticism and Agreeableness scores and negatively correlated with FFM Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness scores. The magnitudes of these correlations were all in the small-to-moderate range, and comparable score intercorrelations were obtained when participants' dependency levels were assessed by means of a trait dependency questionnaire, dependent personality disorder questionnaire, or dependent personality disorder interview. These findings have implications for researchers' efforts to deconstruct dependency into its basic trait elements and for the dimensional approaches to personality disorders being considered for future versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.     

The validity of FFM personality dimensions and maladaptive traits to predict negative affects at work: a six month prospective study in a military sample

The present work explores what the domain of maladaptive traits has to offer to the industrial and organizational (I/O) field investigating the incremental validity of maladaptive traits from DSM Axis II to predict negative emotions experienced at work, beyond Five‐Factor Model dimensions. This study was designed to examine the validity of adaptive and maladaptive traits to predict four negative affects (Anger, Fear, Sadness, and Shame) experienced at work in military personnel. The design was longitudinal, including two measurement moments, i.e. prior to and immediately after returning from a peace mission in a foreign country. The four negative affects were largely stable across a six month interval. FFM dimensions substantially explained negative affects experienced six months later, although the variance accounted for varied strongly across affects. In line with previous research, emotional stability was a consistent negative predictor of negative affects at both measurement moments. Two maladaptive traits derived from DSM Axis II (i.e. Borderline and Avoidant) were consistently related to specific negative affects experienced at work. Finally, maladaptive traits did not predict negative affect variance beyond FFM traits. These results are in line with robust findings suggesting that maladaptive trait patterns could be integrated in the five‐factor space, and as a consequence have little or no incremental utility over FFM dimensions. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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. Widiger's (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 Meta‐Analytic Multitrait Multirater Separation of Substance and Style in Social Desirability Scales

Though unlikely virtues scales have a long history in personality, clinical, and applied psychology for detecting socially desirable responding, using such social desirability (SD) scales has generally failed to improve the validity of personality measures. We examined whether this is because (a) response distortion itself has minimal impact on personality's validity, (b) SD scales are ineffective at assessing response distortion, or (c) SD scales are conflated with substantive trait variance. We compiled a meta‐analytic multitrait multimethod matrix consisting of multirater personality traits, SD scales, and performance outcomes. We examined the influence of trait factors and self‐report method factors on SD scales and performance. We found that self‐report method variance (a) was negatively related to performance, (b) would suppress personality‐performance relationships for self‐report measures, and (c) was (partially) assessed by SD scales. However, relative to the effects of self‐report method variance, SD scales are even more strongly influenced by Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness. It is not the case that SD scales are insensitive to inflated responding but that their susceptibility to personality trait variance likely outweighs their benefits. We discuss the implications of these results for using SD scales in research and practice.