OBJECTIVE: A dimensional diagnostic system for personality disorders (PD) postulates continuous transitions from normal to disordered personalities (continuity hypothesis) and universal validity of basic personality dimensions (universal hypothesis). In the present study three dimensional personality models that claim to provide a systematic representation of the overall domain of personality disorders were compared: the Big-Five model proposed by Costa and McCrae, the psychobiological model proposed by Cloninger and colleagues, and the "Dimensional Assessment of Personal Pathology (DAPP)" model proposed by Livesley and colleagues. METHOD: The "Six Factor Test" (SFT) measuring the Big-Five factors of personality, the "Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI)" measuring 4 temperament and 3 character dimensions, and the DAPP measuring 18 basic traits and 4 second ordered factors were administered to general population subjects (n = 156), and a clinical sample (n = 220) including a subsample of 69 patients with at least one diagnosis of DSM-IV PD. Group comparisons, regression analyses, and facet theoretical analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The nonmetric similarity analyses of the three personality models show a nearly identical radex-representation of the second ordered factors in the non-clinical and clinical sample reflecting an universal validity of 4 basic personality dimensions and confirming the universal hypothesis. In comparison with the BIG-Five concept and the psychobiological model the DAPP model seems to be more sensitive to differentiate PD patients from controls with a reclassification rate of 94.5 %. CONCLUSIONS: The Big-Five model, the DAPP and the TCI represent a substantially similar domain despite their different conceptualization. However, the DAPP was more sensitive to differences between PD patients and controls, offered a more comprehensive account of PD, and could differentiate the two groups more effectively.
OBJECTIVE: A dimensional diagnostic system for personality disorders (PD) postulates continuous transitions from normal to disordered personalities (continuity hypothesis) and universal validity of basic personality dimensions (universal hypothesis). In the present study three dimensional personality models that claim to provide a systematic representation of the overall domain of personality disorders were compared: the Big-Five model proposed by Costa and McCrae, the psychobiological model proposed by Cloninger and colleagues, and the "Dimensional Assessment of Personal Pathology (DAPP)" model proposed by Livesley and colleagues. METHOD: The "Six Factor Test" (SFT) measuring the Big-Five factors of personality, the "Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI)" measuring 4 temperament and 3 character dimensions, and the DAPP measuring 18 basic traits and 4 second ordered factors were administered to general population subjects (n = 156), and a clinical sample (n = 220) including a subsample of 69 patients with at least one diagnosis of DSM-IV PD. Group comparisons, regression analyses, and facet theoretical analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The nonmetric similarity analyses of the three personality models show a nearly identical radex-representation of the second ordered factors in the non-clinical and clinical sample reflecting an universal validity of 4 basic personality dimensions and confirming the universal hypothesis. In comparison with the BIG-Five concept and the psychobiological model the DAPP model seems to be more sensitive to differentiate PDpatients from controls with a reclassification rate of 94.5 %. CONCLUSIONS: The Big-Five model, the DAPP and the TCI represent a substantially similar domain despite their different conceptualization. However, the DAPP was more sensitive to differences between PDpatients and controls, offered a more comprehensive account of PD, and could differentiate the two groups more effectively.
Authors: Marialuisa Cavelti; Stefan Lerch; Denisa Ghinea; Gloria Fischer-Waldschmidt; Franz Resch; Julian Koenig; Michael Kaess Journal: Borderline Personal Disord Emot Dysregul Date: 2021-02-26