4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

On the Structure of Personality Disorder Traits: Conjoint Analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 Trait Models

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/per0000037

关键词

personality traits; personality disorders; personality pathology; hierarchical trait models

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH080086, F32 MH097325, F32MH097325, R01MH80086] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH080086, F32MH097325] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study examines the relations among contemporary models of pathological and normal range personality traits. Specifically, we report on (a) conjoint exploratory factor analyses of the Computerized Adaptive Test of Personality Disorder static form (CAT-PD-SF) with the Personality Inventory for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition and NEO Personality Inventory-3 First Half, and (b) unfolding hierarchical analyses of the three measures in a large general psychiatric outpatient sample (n = 628; 64% Female). A five-factor solution provided conceptually coherent alignment among the CAT-PD-SF, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3FH scales. Hierarchical solutions suggested that higher-order factors bear strong resemblance to dimensions that emerge from structural models of psychopathology (e.g., Internalizing and Externalizing spectra). These results demonstrate that the CAT-PD-SF adheres to the consensual structure of broad trait domains at the five-factor level. Additionally, patterns of scale loadings further inform questions of structure and bipolarity of facet and domain level constructs. Finally, hierarchical analyses strengthen the argument for using broad dimensions that span normative and pathological functioning to scaffold a quantitatively derived phenotypic structure of psychopathology to orient future research on explanatory, etiological, and maintenance mechanisms.

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

4.2
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