Abstract
In psychiatric outpatients, the usefulness of the dimensional NEO-FFI as a screening instrument for personality disorders (PDs) was compared with the categorical screening instrument SAPAS-SR using the SCID-II as the gold standard. Major research questions are: 1) is the NEO-FFI a useful screening instrument for PDs? 2) does the NEO-FFI outperform a categorical screening instrument (SAPAS-SR)? 3) does combining both instruments improve the screening results? Extreme raising on Big Five personality trait domains (NEO-FFI) domain scores were examined in relation to the presence and the number of PDs as diagnosed, with to the SCID-II. Additionally, the NEO-FFI, in conjunction with a short self-report screening instrument (SAPAS-SR), was analysed with respect to sensitivity and specificity for screening of PDs. According to the SCID II, 97 patients (50%) were suffering from a PD. The majority of them had no (35.9%) or only one (40%) extreme score on one of the Big Five personality domains. There were no significant relationships between separate extreme traits on PD or five factor profiles, as proposed in the literature, and the presence of a SCID-II PD. Comparisons of the NEO-FFI with the SAPAS-SR showed no significant relationships. Using both screeners in conjunction resulted in an increase in specificity and the number of correctly classified cases at the expense, however, of the sensitivity. Correlation and regression analyses showed that personality traits are statistically significant predictors for each of the12 PDs. However, the associations between NEO-FFI scores and the DSM-VI-TR PD criteria were rather modest. Support could not be obtained for the view that separate extreme scores on basic personality traits or combinations of such scores in five-factor profiles will provide adequate screening possibilities for PDs. The SAPAS-SR has better screening potential than the NEO-FFI or the SAPAS-SR and the NEO-FFI together.
Highlights
Co-morbid personality disorders (PD) adversely affect the outcome of mental illnesses, but are important factors in the choice of treatment options (Moran, Walsh, Tyrer, Burns, Creed, & Fahy, 2003; Newton-Howes, Tyrer, & Johnson, 2006)
Diagnostic instruments with an adequate psychometric profile, like the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (SCID-II) (Spitzer, Williams, Gibbon, & First, 1990) and the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disordersrevised (SIDP-R) (Reich 1989), are well-known and accessible, but when it comes to daily reality, it is not always feasible to use these instruments in a clinical setting
The mean number of PDs in patients diagnosed with any PD was 1.8 (SD = .87)
Summary
Co-morbid personality disorders (PD) adversely affect the outcome of mental illnesses, but are important factors in the choice of treatment options (Moran, Walsh, Tyrer, Burns, Creed, & Fahy, 2003; Newton-Howes, Tyrer, & Johnson, 2006). For this reason, assessment of the personality status should be a part of each initial psychiatric examination. Inherent in full scale interviews, one might resort to one of the available short structured interviews for PD. Examples include the Standardized Assessment of Personality-Abbreviated Scale (SAPAS)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
