The Validation of a Five-Item Screening Scale for Personality Disorders in Dutch-Speaking Community Adolescents and Adults

In Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – fifth edition (DSM-5), an Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) is proposed, including a criterion for personality functioning impairment (Criterion A) to assess severity of personality pathology. The present study examined the structure, reliability, and convergent validity of the Dutch version of a five-item screening scale for Criterion A—the Five-Item Screening Scale for Personality Disorders (FISSPD; Skodol et al., in Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2, 4-22, 2011)—in a community sample of 1,477 adolescents and 546 adults. To assess convergent validity, identity and personality (pathology) questionnaires were completed by adolescents and adults. Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a single factor structure for the FISSPD, which proved to be (partially) invariant across age and gender. Adequate reliability coefficients were obtained for the FISSPD. In both the adolescent and adult sample, significant correlations were found between the FISSPD and consolidated identity (negative) and disturbed identity/lack of identity (positive). In the adult sample, the FISSPD showed significant correlations with several personality disorders (and especially with the borderline personality disorder), maladaptive personality traits (Criterion B of the AMPD), and general personality impairment. In the adolescent sample, the FISSPD was positively correlated with borderline personality disorder characteristics. Furthermore, significant correlations were found with the Big-Five personality traits in the adolescent sample: the FISSPD correlated significantly positive with neuroticism, and negative with extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In sum, the present study supports the reliability and validity of the FISSPD to screen for (severity of) personality pathology.

     

Orientation of attention to nonconsciously recognised famous faces

The nonconscious orientation of attention to famous faces was investigated using masked 17 ms stimulus exposure. Each trial presented a simultaneous pair of one famous and one unfamiliar face, matched on physical characteristics, one each in left visual field (LVF) and right visual field (RVF). These were followed by a dot probe in either LVF or RVF to which participants made a speeded two-alternative forced-choice discrimination response. Participants subsequently evaluated the affective valence (good/evil) of the famous persons on a 7-point scale. Higher accuracy of dot probe discrimination in the same visual field (VF) as the famous face suggested that attention was oriented towards faces of persons evaluated “good”, but a reverse orientation effect was observed for those evaluated “evil”. The awareness check presented the same face pairs under the same conditions, and participants were at chance in a task of selecting the famous face in each pair. The results suggest that famous faces can be identified without awareness, and that attention is attracted by the faces of famous persons not regarded as “evil”.     

Putting the Burden of Proof in Its Place: When Are Differential Allocations Legitimate?

It is widely assumed that legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof are ubiquitous: that in all cases in which opposing views are being debated, one side has the responsibility of proving their claim and if they fail, the opposing view wins by default. We argue that the cases in which one party has the burden of proof are exceptions. In general, participants in reasoned discourse are all required to provide reasons for the claims they make. We distinguish between truth‐directed and non‐truth‐directed discourse, argue that the paradigm contexts in which there are legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof (law and formal debate) are non‐truth‐directed, and suggest that in truth‐directed contexts, except in certain special cases, differential allocation of the burden of proof is not warranted.     

Isolating cognitive modules with the dual-task paradigm: Are speech perception and production separate processes?

A dual-task paradigm is used to investigate whether the auditory input logogen is distinct from the articulatory output logogen. In the first two experiments it is shown that the task of detecting an unspecified name in an auditory input stream can be combined with reading aloud visually presented words with relatively little single- to dual-task decrement. The stimuli for both tasks are independent streams of random words presented at rapid rates. A series of control experiments suggest that the first task places a considerable information processing load on the auditory input logogen, the second a considerable load on the phonological output logogen, and that subjects do not switch between the two tasks. The fact that the two tasks can be combined with ease is therefore interpreted as supporting the view that the systems underlying reading aloud and listening are separate. The ease of performance when the input streams are in different modalities, compared to the difficulties when they are in the same, has implications for general models of attention.     

Applying personal construct theory in occupational guidance

Personal construct theory was applied to various occupational choice problems. It became clear that there was no single best way of applying it, since the technique could easily be adapted to suit varying circumstances. Attempts to introduce it to occupational guidance officers have so far lead to only limited use, but it is hoped that modified training may increase their confidence in utilising it where appropriate.