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.
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.
Authors: K S Kendler; S H Aggen; M C Neale; G P Knudsen; R F Krueger; K Tambs; N Czajkowski; E Ystrom; R E Ørstavik; T Reichborn-Kjennerud Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Leslie C Morey; M Tracie Shea; John C Markowitz; Robert L Stout; Christopher J Hopwood; John G Gunderson; Carlos M Grilo; Thomas H McGlashan; Shirley Yen; Charles A Sanislow; Andrew E Skodol Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2010-02-16 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Christopher J Hopwood; Leslie C Morey; M Brent Donnellan; Douglas B Samuel; Carlos M Grilo; Thomas H McGlashan; M Tracie Shea; Mary C Zanarini; John G Gunderson; Andrew E Skodol Journal: J Pers Date: 2013-02-05
Authors: Katherine M Thomas; Christopher J Hopwood; M Brent Donnellan; Aidan G C Wright; Charles A Sanislow; Meghan E McDevitt-Murphy; Emily B Ansell; Carlos M Grilo; Thomas H McGlashan; M Tracie Shea; John C Markowitz; Andrew E Skodol; Mary C Zanarini; Leslie C Morey Journal: Psychol Assess Date: 2013-09-09