“…But because self- and informant-reports each provide relevant and unique PD information (e.g., Bernstein et al, 1997; Clifton, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2005; Dreesen et al, 1998; Ferro & Klein, 1997; Fiedler, Oltmanns, & Turkheimer, 2004; Klein, 2003; Miller, Pilkonis, & Clifton, 2005; Miller, Pilkonis, & Morse, 2004; Oltmanns et al, 1998; Ready, Watson, & Clark, 2002; Riso, Klein, Anderson, Ouimette, & Lizardi, 1994; Zimmerman, Pfohl, Stangl, & Corenthal, 1986), a more common practice is to integrate the data gathered from both sources (e.g., Bernstein et al, 1997; Pilkonis, Heape, Ruddy, & Serrao, 1991; Zimmerman et al, 1986; Zimmerman, Pfohl, Coryell, Stangl, & Corenthal, 1988). Integrating data from an informant generally increases, rather than decreases, the number of PD diagnoses when consensus methods are used (e.g., Riso et al, 1994; Zimmerman et al, 1986), but a point of debate that remains unresolved in the PD assessment literature is who reports more personality pathology: selves or informants. In their reviews, Klonsky et al (2002) and Zimmerman (1994) determined that there may be a slight trend for informants to report more personality pathology than selves.…”