An examination of the Validity of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment: Relations with Other Psychopathy Measures,Aggression, and Externalizing Behaviors

The Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA) is a new self-report measure of psychopathy designed to assess the personality traits associated with psychopathy from a Five Factor Model perspective. The current study examined the validity of the EPA in sample of undergraduates by examining the relations between the EPA scales and three validated self-report psychopathy instruments, as well as assessments of aggression, substance use, and antisocial behavior. The EPA scales manifested strong convergent validity with the extant psychopathy measures and an expected pattern of relations with measures of externalizing behaviors. Overall, the EPA appears to be a promising measure of psychopathy which provides new opportunities to explore the underlying structure of this construct and parse its relations with constructs central to its nomological network.     

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.     

Convergence of narcissism measures from the perspective of general personality functioning

The construct of narcissism has a lengthy history and has been operationalized and measured by a variety of instruments. In this study, five narcissism scales were compared in terms of alternative conceptualizations of narcissism offered by C. C. Morf and F. Rhodewalt (2001), D. L. Paulhus (2001), and S. Vazire and D. C. Funder (2006), using the domains and facets of the five-factor model as a common point of comparison. The findings provided little support for the conceptualizations of Morf and Rhodewalt or Vazire and Funder. Support was obtained for the conceptualization of Paulhus, particularly as assessed by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and, secondarily, the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III. Implications for the assessment and conceptualization of narcissism are discussed.     

The MMPI, prototypal typology, and borderline personality disorder

This study demonstrates inherent features in the DSM-III diagnostic criteria for personality disorders (i.e., overlapping diagnoses and heterogeneous symptomatology) that limit efforts to identify a sensitive and specific MMPI profile for the borderline personality disorder. A sample of 71 inpatients was administered an MMPI and a semistructured interview that systematically evaluated each of 81 symptoms for the 11 DSM-III personality disorders. Interrater reliability was substantially higher than has been obtained with unstructured interviews. The effect on the borderline MMPI profile of variation in the number of borderline symptoms and overlap with the schizotypal, histrionic, and antisocial diagnoses was demonstrated. We discuss implications with respect to a prototypal model of classification.     

Generalized social phobia versus avoidant personality disorder: a commentary on three studies.

The findings of Herbert, Hope, and Bellack (1992), Holt, Heimberg, and Hope (1992), and Turner, Beidel, and Townsley (1992) are largely consistent. Avoidant personality disorder and generalized social phobia appear to be overlapping constructs that have only minor differences with respect to severity of dysfunction. This commentary addresses the implications of the findings with respect to the validity of the categorical distinction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (rev. 3rd ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1987) between avoidant personality and generalized social phobia, revisions of their respective diagnostic criteria, and their reclassification as either an anxiety or a personality disorder. Methodological and substantive suggestions for future research are also discussed.     

Personality and Psychopathology: An Application of the Five-Factor Model

Our review is concerned with the relationship of the five-factor model of personality to psychopathology, focusing in particular on Axis II personality disorders and depression. The five factors provide a particularly compelling model for interpreting the Axis II personality disorders as maladaptive variants of normal personality traits. However, we also discuss methodological and conceptual limitations of this application. There has been little research on the relationship of Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness to Axis I mental disorders, but considerable attention has been given to Neuroticism and Extraversion. We focus in particular on the difficulty in distinguishing between the various ways in which personality can relate to depression, either as a predisposition to, a complication of, a pathoplastic effect upon, or a spectrum variant of the mental disorder. We conclude with recommendations for future research.     

Sex and gender bias in self-report personality disorder inventories: item analysis of the MCMI-II, MMPI, and PDQ-R

There has been considerable controversy and research regarding sex bias in the diagnosis of personality disorders, but little has involved self-report inventories. Thus this study investigated items from the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (Millon, 1987), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985), and the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised (Hyler & Rieder, 1987). Subjects (N = 189) completed the Histrionic, Dependent, Antisocial, and Narcissistic scales from these inventories, along with the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974) and the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Derogatis, 1977). Items were considered to evidence sex or gender bias if they (a) failed to correlate with dysfunction and (b) exhibited sex or gender role differences. At least 13 items evidenced sex bias (76 items using a more liberal threshold). The majority were from Narcissistic scales; few Histrionic items evidenced sex or gender bias. Implications with respect to sex-bias assessment and item construction are discussed.     

The MCMI as a measure of DSM-III

The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) has been interpreted as a measure of DSM-III disorders. However, the MCMI was constructed and validated primarily as a measure of Millon's (1969, 1981) taxonomy, not DSM-III. Comparison of the two taxonomies and examination of the MCMI's content validity for two of the MCMI scales indicate only a partial congruence between the Millon and DSM-III taxonomies. There has been no published empirical research concerning the relationship between the MCMI and DSM-III, and the derivation and cross-validation research for the MCMI scales employed Millon's taxonomy and not DSM-III. It is suggested that until such data have been presented one should be cautious in one's interpretation of the MCMI as a measure of DSM-III disorders.     

Personality disorder and Axis I psychopathology: the problematic boundary of Axis I and Axis II

The confusion of personality disorders with Axis I disorders can be traced in part to inadequacies of assessment instruments and diagnostic criterion sets. However, it also reflects the absence of adequate conceptualization. If Axis I continues to include early onset, chronic impairments that characterize everyday functioning, then there is unlikely to be a clear or meaningful distinction. Inherent and unique to personality disorders is that they concern a person's sense of self and identity. They are disorders of everyday functioning. Personality disorders have an early onset, characterize everyday functioning, and relate closely to personality functioning evident within the general population; Axis I disorders, in contrast, have an onset throughout adult life, are episodic, and are readily distinguishable from normal personality functioning.