A Comparative Study of the Dimensions and Facets of the Five-Factor Model in the Diagnosis of Cases of Personality Disorder

Sprock, June

doi:10.1521/pedi.16.5.402.22122

Cited by 44 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Use of dimensional diagnosis for personality pathology may be particularly challenging when there is comorbid Axis I pathology, which is typical of individuals presenting for treatment. In addition, whereas this study utilized the higher order dimensions of the models, future research might examine the lower order dimensions and traits, which may be more useful for clinical practice (i.e., Dyce & O'Connor, 1998;Livesley & Jang, 2000;Lynam & Widiger, 2001;Sprock, 2002;Widiger, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensional versus categorical classification of prototypic and nonprototypic cases of personality disorder

Sprock

2003

J Clin Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined interrater reliability and ratings of confidence and clinical utility (professional communication, case conceptualization, treatment planning) of categorical and dimensional approaches to diagnosing prototypic and nonprototypic personality disorder cases. Two national samples of psychologists (n = 93, n = 92) participated. Interrater reliability was higher for prototypic cases than nonprototypic cases for the categorical system, but similar for prototypic and nonprototypic cases using dimensional ratings. Across cases, interrater reliability and confidence were highest for the categorical model, hybrid models, and the five-factor model. However, ratings of clinical utility were highest for the categorical and the hybrid models, even when interrater reliability was inadequate, suggesting clinician preference for a classification based on the existing categories. Mean ratings for the prototypic cases supported the theorized relationships between the dimensional models and the personality disorders. Reasons for these findings and implications for moving towards a dimensional model of personality disorder are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensional versus categorical classification of prototypic and nonprototypic cases of personality disorder

Sprock

2003

J Clin Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Average inter-rater reliability was good, ranging from .48 to .66. Samuel and Widiger 26 (see also Sprock 28 ) also demonstrated that practicing clinicians could also describe the personality disorders in terms of the FFM with fairly high inter-rater agreement, ranging from .64 to .78. Samuel and Widiger 26 also found extremely high agreement between the prototypes derived from practicing clinicians and those from experts in personality disorders 27 .…”

Section: Back-translation Task Used In Rottman Et Al25mentioning

confidence: 96%

Can Personality Disorder Experts RecognizeDSM-IVPersonality Disorders From Five-Factor Model Descriptions of Patient Cases?

Rottman

Kim

Ahn

et al. 2010

J. Clin. Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Dimensional models of personality are under consideration for integration into the next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), but the clinical utility of such models is unclear. Objective To test the ability of clinical researchers who specialize in personality disorders to diagnose personality disorders using dimensional assessments, and to compare these researchers’ ratings of clinical utility for a dimensional system versus for the DSM-IV. Method A sample of 73 researchers who had each published at least three (Median=15) articles on personality disorders participated between December 2008 and January 2009. The Five-Factor Model (FFM), one of the most-studied dimensional models to date, was compared to the DSM-IV. Participants provided diagnoses for case profiles in DSM-IV and FFM formats, and then rated the DSM-IV and FFM on six aspects of clinical utility. Results Overall, participants had difficulty identifying correct diagnoses from FFM profiles, and the same held true for a subset reporting equal familiarity with the DSM-IV and FFM. Participants rated the FFM as less clinically useful than the DSM for making prognoses, devising treatment plans, and communicating with professionals, but more useful for communicating with patients. Conclusions The results suggest that personality disorder expertise and familiarity with the FFM are insufficient to correctly diagnose personality disorders using FFM profiles. Because of ambiguity inherent in FFM profile descriptors, it may be that this insufficiency is unlikely to be attenuated with increased clinical familiarity with the FFM.

show abstract

“…Research studies examining relations between the DSM PDs and measures of normal-range personality, including the FFM, have revealed that the domains of normal and abnormal personality are largely overlapping (O'Connor 2002). More specifically, the DSM PDs can be characterized with the FFM conceptually-by both clinical researchers and practicing clinicians (Samuel & Widiger 2004, 2006Sprock 2002)-and empirically (O'Connor 2005, Saulsman & Page 2004.…”

Section: Personality Disorder Diagnosis and The Ffmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lowerorder (facet-level) characterizations differentiate better among individuals with PD than do higher-order (domain-level) ones (Bagby et al 2005a, Morey et al 2002, Reynolds & Clark 2001. Moreover, practicing clinicians rated facets as more useful clinically than domain scores (Sprock 2002).…”

Section: Personality Disorder Diagnosis and The Ffmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment and Diagnosis of Personality Disorder: Perennial Issues and an Emerging Reconceptualization

Clark

2007

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

692

726

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter reviews recent (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) personality disorder (PD) research, focusing on three major domains: assessment, comorbidity, and stability. (a) Substantial evidence has accrued favoring dimensional over categorical conceptualization of PD, and the five-factor model of personality is prominent as an integrating framework. Future directions include assessing dysfunction separately from traits and learning to utilize collateral information. (b) To address the pervasiveness and extent of comorbidity, researchers have begun to move beyond studying overlapping pairs or small sets of disorders and are developing broader, more integrated common-factor models that cross the Axis I-Axis II boundary. (c) Studies of PD stability have converged on the finding that PD features include both more acute, dysfunctional behaviors that resolve in relatively short periods, and maladaptive temperamental traits that are relatively more stable-similar to normal-range personality traits-with increasing stability until after 50 years of age. A new model for assessing PDand perhaps all psychopathology-emerges from integrating these interrelated reconceptualizations.

show abstract

A Comparative Study of the Dimensions and Facets of the Five-Factor Model in the Diagnosis of Cases of Personality Disorder

Cited by 44 publications

References 28 publications

Dimensional versus categorical classification of prototypic and nonprototypic cases of personality disorder

Dimensional versus categorical classification of prototypic and nonprototypic cases of personality disorder

Can Personality Disorder Experts RecognizeDSM-IVPersonality Disorders From Five-Factor Model Descriptions of Patient Cases?

Assessment and Diagnosis of Personality Disorder: Perennial Issues and an Emerging Reconceptualization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About