Comparing Idiothetic, Ipsative, and Normative Indices of Consistency

ABSTRACT Lamiell's (1981) “idiothetic” index has been praised for raising significant conceptual and methodological issues, but Paunonen and Jackson (1986a) indicated that it might not provide any unique information The current study demonstrates that the unique value of the idiothetic index relative to the ipsative, normative, and normative-ipsative indices is dependent in part upon what information is collected and how it is analyzed Subjects completed inventories on three occasions that assessed seven dispositional variables Interindividual analyses indicated a high correlation between the idiothetic method and two of the other models, whereas intra-individual analyses indicated a much lower degree of correlation Intra-individual analyses indicated that the idiothetic method produced higher temporal stability coefficients The idiothetic index provides information not contained in a normative index and it may be more useful to personality researchers for the assessment of temporal stability and for the assessment of traits with extreme base rates     

Gender bias in self-report personality disorder inventories

There has been considerable controversy and research regarding gender biases in the diagnosis of personality disorders, but few studies have explored whether personality disorder self-report inventories might contain gender biases. The current study investigated whether items from three commonly used inventories evidence a potential for gender bias. Subjects were from outpatient mental health clinics. Items were considered gender biased if they exhibited gender differences and failed to correlate with or, more importantly, correlated negatively with dysfunction. Thirty-eight items evidenced potential bias, the majority of which were from Narcissistic scales. The implications of the results for the clinical assessment of purportedly maladaptive personality traits and for the construction of personality disorder scales are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Clinicians' judgments of clinical utility: a comparison of the DSM-IV and five-factor models

Clinical utility, or the usefulness of a diagnostic system in clinical practice, has been identified as an important construct in proposed revisions to the diagnostic nomenclature and a significant limitation of dimensional models of personality disorder, such as the 5-factor model (FFM). Only 1 study to date has addressed explicitly the clinical utility of the FFM, and the findings suggested significant limitations. In the current study, 245 practicing psychologists described 3 historic cases using both the FFM and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and then rated each model on 6 aspects of clinical utility. In contrast to prior research, the psychologists in this study considered the FFM to have greater clinical utility than the existing diagnostic categories.     

A Comparison of Obsessive–Compulsive Personality Disorder Scales

In this study, we utilized a large undergraduate sample (N = 536), oversampled for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision [DSM–IV–TR]; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) pathology, to compare 8 self-report measures of OCPD. No prior study has compared more than 3 measures, and the results indicate that the scales had only moderate convergent validity. We also went beyond the existing literature to compare these scales to 2 external reference points: their relationships with a well-established measure of the five-factor model of personality (FFM) and clinicians' ratings of their coverage of the DSM–IV–TR criterion set. When the FFM was used as a point of comparison, the results suggest important differences among the measures with respect to their divergent representation of conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness. Additionally, an analysis of the construct coverage indicated that the measures also varied in terms of their representation of particular diagnostic criteria. For example, whereas some scales contained items distributed across the diagnostic criteria, others were concentrated more heavily on particular features of the DSM–IV–TR disorder.