4.4 Article

Longitudinal Validation of General and Specific Structural Features of Personality Pathology

期刊

JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 125, 期 8, 页码 1120-1134

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/abn0000165

关键词

personality disorders; personality traits; psychosocial functioning; longitudinal studies; bifactor model; multilevel structural equation modeling

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [MH50837, MH50838, MH50839, MH50840, MH50850, MH073708, MH08022, L30 MH101760]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Theorists have long argued that personality disorder (PD) is best understood in terms of general impairments shared across the disorders as well as more specific instantiations of pathology. A model based on this theoretical structure was proposed as part of the DSM-5 revision process. However, only recently has this structure been subjected to formal quantitative evaluation, with little in the way of validation efforts via external correlates or prospective longitudinal prediction. We used the Collaborative Longitudinal Study of Personality Disorders dataset to: (a) estimate structural models that parse general from specific variance in personality disorder features, (b) examine patterns of growth in general and specific features over the course of 10 years, and (c) establish concurrent and dynamic longitudinal associations in PD features and a host of external validators including basic personality traits and psychosocial functioning scales. We found that general PD exhibited much lower absolute stability and was most strongly related to broad markers of psychosocial functioning, concurrently and longitudinally, whereas specific features had much higher mean stability and exhibited more circumscribed associations with functioning. However, both general and specific factors showed recognizable associations with normative and pathological traits. These results can inform efforts to refine the conceptualization and diagnosis of personality pathology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据