Comparison of categorical and dimensional approaches to the diagnosis of personality disorders

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-25
Author(s):  
T. G. Gadisov ◽  
A. A. Tkachenko
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Structure ◽  
Categorical Approach ◽  
Personal Traits ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Neo Five Factor Inventory

Summary. Objective: A comparative study of the personality structure from the perspective the Five-factor personality model (“Big Five”) in mentally healthy and in people with personality disorders depending on the leading radical determined by the clinical method.Materials and methods: a comparative study of personality structures in the mentally healthy (13 people) and in individuals with personality disorders (47 people) was carried out. To assess the personality structure, the NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire was used. Persons with personality disorders were divided into groups in accordance with the leading radical: 24 — with emotionally unstable; 13 — with a histrionic; 6 — with schizoid; 4 — with paranoid radicals.Results: There were no differences in the values of the domains of the Five-Factor personality model between a group of individuals with personality disorders and the norm. The features of domain indicators of the Five-factor personality model were revealed in individuals with personality disorder depending on theradical.Conclusion: The NEO-Five Factor Inventory questionnaire, like most other tools from the perspective of the Five-Factor Model, is not suitable for assessing a person in terms of assigning it to variants of a mental disorder. When comparing the categorical and dimensional approaches to assessing the structure of personality disorders, it was found that the obligate personality traits identified using the categorical approach are fully reflected in the «Big Five» in individuals with a leading schizoid radical. The relations of obligate personal traits with the domains of the Five-factor model of personality in individuals with other (paranoid, histrionic,and emotionally unstable) radicals are less clear.

Thinking styles and the five‐factor model of personality

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 465-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li‐fang Zhang ◽  
Jiafen Huang
Keyword(s):  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Specific Pattern ◽  
Thinking Styles ◽  
Big Five Personality ◽  
Personality Dimensions ◽  
Complex Thinking ◽  
Neo Five Factor Inventory

The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between thinking styles and the big five personality dimensions. Four hundred and eight (149 males, 259 females) university students from Shanghai, mainland China, responded to the Thinking Styles Inventory and the NEO Five‐Factor Inventory. It was found that thinking styles and personality dimensions overlap to a degree. As predicted, the more creativity‐generating and more complex thinking styles were related to the extraversion and openness personality dimensions, and the more norm‐favouring and simplistic thinking styles were related to neuroticism. No specific pattern was identified in the relationships of thinking styles to the agreeableness and conscientiousness dimensions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Childhood antecedents of personality disorder: An alternative perspective

2009 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 771-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Barbara De Clercq ◽  
Filip De Fruyt
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Structure ◽  
Childhood And Adolescence ◽  
Adult Personality ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Childhood Antecedents

AbstractOne of the fundamental limitations of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Fourth Edition, Text Revision(DSM-IV-TR) categorical model of personality disorder classification has been the lack of a strong scientific foundation, including an understanding of childhood antecedents. TheDSM-IV-TRpersonality disorders, however, do appear to be well understood as maladaptive variants of the domains and facets of the general personality structure as conceptualized within the five-factor model (FFM). Integrating the classification of personality disorder with the FFM brings to an understanding of the personality disorders a considerable body of scientific research on childhood antecedents. The temperaments and traits of childhood do appear to be antecedent to the FFM of adult personality structure, and these temperament and traits of childhood and adolescence are the likely antecedents for adult personality disorder, providing further support for the conceptualization of the adult personality disorders as maladaptive variants of the domains and facets of the FFM. Conceptualizing personality disorders in terms of the FFM thereby provides a basis for integrating the classification of abnormal and normal personality functioning across the life span.

Social Desirability in Personality Inventories

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bäckström ◽  
Fredrik Björklund
Keyword(s):  
Social Desirability ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Work Performance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Peer Ratings ◽  
Personality Inventories ◽  
Model Study ◽  
The Difference ◽  
New Variables

The difference between evaluatively loaded and evaluatively neutralized five-factor inventory items was used to create new variables, one for each factor in the five-factor model. Study 1 showed that these variables can be represented in terms of a general evaluative factor which is related to social desirability measures and indicated that the factor may equally well be represented as separate from the Big Five as superordinate to them. Study 2 revealed an evaluative factor in self-ratings and peer ratings of the Big Five, but the evaluative factor in self-reports did not correlate with such a factor in ratings by peers. In Study 3 the evaluative factor contributed above the Big Five in predicting work performance, indicating a substance component. The results are discussed in relation to measurement issues and self-serving biases.

Construction and Validation of a Short Adjectives Checklist to Measure Big Five (SACBIF)

1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Perugini ◽  
Luigi Leone
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Selection Procedure ◽  
Factorial Structure ◽  
Personality Dimensions

The aim of this contribution is to present a new short adjective-based measure of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality, the Short Adjectives Checklist of BIg Five (SACBIF). We present the various steps of the construction and the validation of this instrument. First, 50 adjectives were selected with a selection procedure, the “Lining Up Technique” (LUT), specifically used to identify the best factorial markers of the FFM. Then, the factorial structure and the psychometric properties of the SACBIF were investigated. Finally, the SACBIF factorial structure was correlated with some main measures of the FFM to establish its construct validity and with some other personality dimensions to investigate how well these dimensions could be represented in the SACBIF factorial space.

Developing the Five-Factor Model: Is the Big Five a Theory of Personality?

1998 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 687-688
Author(s):  
Gregory K. Patton
Keyword(s):  
Big Five ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model

scholarly journals Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 983-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
LESLIE C. MOREY ◽  
CHRISTOPHER J. HOPWOOD ◽  
JOHN G. GUNDERSON ◽  
ANDREW E. SKODOL ◽  
M. TRACIE SHEA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Collaborative Study ◽  
Validation Data ◽  
Categorical Diagnosis ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Dimensional Models ◽  
Marker Variables ◽  
Over Time

Background. The categorical classification system for personality disorder (PD) has been frequently criticized and several alternative dimensional models have been proposed.Method. Antecedent, concurrent and predictive markers of construct validity were examined for three models of PDs: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP) model and the DSM-IV in the Collaborative Study of Personality Disorders (CLPS) sample.Results. All models showed substantial validity across a variety of marker variables over time. Dimensional models (including dimensionalized DSM-IV) consistently outperformed the conventional categorical diagnosis in predicting external variables, such as subsequent suicidal gestures and hospitalizations. FFM facets failed to improve upon the validity of higher-order factors upon cross-validation. Data demonstrated the importance of both stable trait and dynamic psychopathological influences in predicting external criteria over time.Conclusions. The results support a dimensional representation of PDs that assesses both stable traits and dynamic processes.

Personality Disorders and The Five-Factor Model of Personality

1990 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul T. Costa ◽  
Robert R. McCrae
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model

Personality Disorders as Extreme Variants of Common Personality Dimensions: Can the Five Factor Model Adequately Represent Psychopathy?

2001 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Miller ◽  
Donald R. Lyman ◽  
Thomas A. Widiger ◽  
Carl Leukefeld
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Five Factor Model ◽  
Personality Dimensions
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document