Model Of General Personality Structure Research Articles

Obtaining and losing the bipolarity of the five-factor model through factor analysis.

The predominant model of general personality structure is arguably the 5-factor model (FFM), consisting of the 5 broad domains of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. A FFM of personality disorder (FFMPD) has proposed maladaptive variants at both poles of the FFM. The purpose of the current study was to identify a subset of FFMPD scales, using factor analysis, that illustrate the bipolarity present in the FFMPD, but equally important, to demonstrate that the presence of bipolarity is impaired by a number of concerns, including the impact of nondiametric scales and the occupation of interstitial space. All of the FFMPD scales were administered to 443 community participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Bipolarity was evident in a series of factor analyses of subsets of FFMPD scales, with the exception of openness due to the presence of nondiametric scales. Scales identified in the current study can be used to provide an alternative measure of maladaptive personality structure, particularly if there is an interest in assessing for maladaptive variants at both poles, but an additional point of emphasis in the current study was also the fragility of this bipolar factor structure within factor analytic research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Analysis of personality disorder profiles obtained by five-factor personality model

Background/Aim. In spite of the growing body of evidence in the field of personality disorders, these disorders still retain the lowest diagnostic reliability of any major category of mental disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences of personality profiles in patients diagnosed with personality disorder in comparison with the group of healthy control subjects, as well as to establish to what extent the five-factor personality model domains determine the specific clusters of personality disorders. Methods. The study group comprised 97 patients diagnosed as personality disorders (according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ? DSM-IV criteria), aged between 18 and 65 years [mean = 35.78 years, standard deviation (SD) = 13.72 years], 67% were female. Control group included 58 healthy subjects (student population) aged between 20 to 35 years (mean = 22.48 years, SD = 2.56 years), 56% were female. The assessment was carried out by the new version of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PIR), form S, and the Structured Clinical Interview (SCID II) for DSM-IV disorders. Results. The three clusters were found by the use of regression analysis: cluster A ? eccentrics (low scores in agreeableness), cluster B ? dramatics (high score in extroversion, low score in agreeableness, and cluster C ? anxious (low score in extroversion). The findings showed that the high level of neuroticism was a non-specific predictor of all three clusters, while dimension openness to experience had no predictive power for any of the three clusters. Conclusion. Our findings support the meta-analysis which suggests consistently high level of neuroticism and low level of agreeableness in most personality disorders. The study showed that it is possible to conceptualize personality disorders by using five-factor personality model of normal personality. Integrating the psychiatric classification with the dimensional model of general personality structure could enable the uncovering of essential parameters for setting the diagnosis.

The Five Factor Model of personality structure: an update.

The Five Factor Model of personality structure: an update.

The bipolarity of normal and abnormal personality structure: Implications for assessment.

The predominant model of general personality structure is arguably the Five Factor Model (FFM), consisting of the 5 broad domains of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. A hypothesis of long-standing interest has been that personality disorders can be understood as extreme and/or maladaptive variants of the domains and facets of the FFM. This hypothesis has now been formally recognized within Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-5) Section III and within the proposal for the 11th edition of the World Health Organization's diagnostic manual. However, a notable feature of both proposals is that they are largely (albeit not exclusively) unipolar with respect to maladaptive personality structure. The purpose of the current article is to present theoretical and empirical support for the presence of maladaptivity at both poles of all 5 domains of the FFM. Discussed in particular are implications for assessment for this maladaptive personality structure. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Five Factor Model personality disorder scales: An introduction to a special section on assessment of maladaptive variants of the five factor model.

The Five-Factor Model (FFM) is a dimensional model of general personality structure, consisting of the domains of neuroticism (or emotional instability), extraversion versus introversion, openness (or unconventionality), agreeableness versus antagonism, and conscientiousness (or constraint). The FFM is arguably the most commonly researched dimensional model of general personality structure. However, a notable limitation of existing measures of the FFM has been a lack of coverage of its maladaptive variants. A series of self-report inventories has been developed to assess for the maladaptive personality traits that define Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fifth edition; DSM-5) Section II personality disorders (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) from the perspective of the FFM. In this paper, we provide an introduction to this Special Section, presenting the rationale and empirical support for these measures and placing them in the historical context of the recent revision to the APA diagnostic manual. This introduction is followed by 5 papers that provide further empirical support for these measures and address current issues within the personality assessment literature. (PsycINFO Database Record

Clinical Application of the Five‐Factor Model

The Five-Factor Model (FFM) has become the predominant dimensional model of general personality structure. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a clinical application. A substantial body of research indicates that the personality disorders included within the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) can be understood as extreme and/or maladaptive variants of the FFM (the acronym "DSM" refers to any particular edition of the APA DSM). In addition, the current proposal for the forthcoming fifth edition of the DSM (i.e., DSM-5) is shifting closely toward an FFM dimensional trait model of personality disorder. Advantages of this shifting conceptualization are discussed, including treatment planning.

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.

The DSM-5 Dimensional Model of Personality Disorder: Rationale and Empirical Support

Ideally, a dimensional model of normal and abnormal personality functioning within the forthcoming DSM-5 would represent a common ground among the existing alternative models and would be consistent with the substantial body of empirical research that has accumulated on such models. The DSM-5 Work Group had the opportunity to make an historic step toward the integration of the normal personality traits researched within psychology with the personality disorders of psychiatry. They chose instead to construct a cumbersome six-dimensional model of personality disorder that excludes normal personality traits, is inconsistent with the preponderance of the research, and is distinguished explicitly from the predominant dimensional model of general personality structure.

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder: A Proposal for DSM-V

The predominant dimensional model of general personality structure within psychology is the five-factor model (FFM). Research indicates that the personality disorders of the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual can be understood as maladaptive variants of the domains and facets of the FFM. The current review provides a proposal for the classification of personality disorder from the perspective of the FFM. Discussed as well are implications and issues associated with an FFM of personality disorder, including the integration of a psychiatric nomenclature with general personality structure, the inclusion of a domain of openness to experience, the identification of problems in living associated with maladaptive personality traits, the setting of a diagnostic threshold, prototypal matching, feasibility, and clinical utility.

Comparative validity of the Shedler and Westen Assessment Procedure-200.

A predominant dimensional model of general personality structure is the five-factor model (FFM). Quite a number of alternative instruments have been developed to assess the domains of the FFM. The current study compares the validity of 2 alternative versions of the Shedler and Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP-200) FFM scales, 1 that was developed on the basis of items identified by J. Shedler and D. Westen (2004) and 1 that used items identified by R. R. McCrae, C. E. Lokenhoff, and P. T. Costa (2005). The comparative validity of both measures was examined in a sample of persons who evidenced personality-related problems in living (N = 94). The McCrae et al. Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness scales were superior to their respective Shedler and Westen scales. Both research teams developed comparably valid Extraversion and Conscientiousness scales. Implications of the results for future SWAP-200 research are discussed.

A Simplistic Understanding of the Five-Factor Model

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Letter to the EditorFull AccessA Simplistic Understanding of the Five-Factor ModelTHOMAS A. WIDIGER, Ph.D., , and TIMOTHY J. TRULL, Ph.D., THOMAS A. WIDIGERSearch for more papers by this author, Ph.D., Lexington, Ky., and TIMOTHY J. TRULLSearch for more papers by this author, Ph.D., Columbia, Mo.Published Online:1 Aug 2005https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1550-aAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail To the Editor: Jonathan Shedler, Ph.D., and Drew Westen, Ph.D. (1), argued that the five-factor model “omits key clinical constructs and may not capture the complexity of personality syndromes seen in clinical practice” (p. 1743). To demonstrate this, they constructed an abbreviated measure of the five-factor model using a small subset (30%) of the 200 items contained within the Shedler-Weston Assessment Procedure (SWAP-200). It was a foregone conclusion that the results of a factor analysis of 30% of the SWAP-200 items would not correspond to a factor analysis of the entire SWAP-200. In addition, one should ask whether their SWAP-200 items provided an adequate assessment of the five-factor model. They never attempted to validate their five-factor model measure, and a visual inspection of the items indicates inaccurate representation of the five-factor model. Finally, it is highly unlikely that their small set of SWAP-200 items would provide anything close to a reasonably comprehensive assessment of the five-factor model. In sum, there was little reason to expect that an incomplete and inadequate assessment of the five-factor model with a subset of the SWAP-200 would account for the variance within the entire SWAP-200.Drs. Shedler and Westen suggested that the constructs assessed by the 12 SWAP-200 scales are outside of the realm of the five-factor model. They ignored many, many studies that indicated otherwise. For example, two other compelling dimensional models of personality disorder have been developed by Dr. Livesley (the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology) and Dr. Clark (the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality). A complete description of and references for these measures, as well as others, is provided by Widiger and Simonsen (2). The clinical constructs assessed by these scales include narcissism, identity problems, eccentric perceptions, affective lability, aggression, detachment, self-harm behaviors, and compulsivity that resemble closely the scales of the SWAP-200, and many studies have documented well that the constructs assessed by the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality are well within the realm of the five-factor model.Drs. Shedler and Westen (1) derogatorily characterized the five-factor model as providing a simplistic lay description of personality. What was simplistic was their characterization of the five-factor model. The five-factor model is a rich dimensional model of general personality structure that has been used successfully in many areas of science and practice, including (but not limited to) the study of temperament, gender differences, heritability, behavioral medicine, and aging. An integration of the DSM-IV personality disorder nomenclature with the five-factor model would go far in integrating DSM-IV with basic science research on personality structure (3). We regret that Drs. Shedler and Westen (1) argued instead for a distinct separation of our clinical understanding of personality disorders and basic science research on personality structure.