A Model-Based Strategy for Interfacing Traits of the DSM-5 AMPD With Neurobiology

Abstract

The DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) groups traits into domains based on factor analyses of self-report data. AMPD traits may need to be configured differently to interface with neurobiology. Focusing on biobehavioral risk for externalizing problems in 334 adults, the authors used structural modeling to evaluate how well alternative configurations of AMPD traits, operationalized using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), interface with neural indicators of externalizing liability. A model specifying two correlated factors defined by traits within the PID-5 Disinhibition domain and brain-response indicators of externalizing proneness exhibited inadequate fit. However, a model using PID-5 traits with better coverage of biobehavioral externalizing liability evidenced good fit. Scores on this PID-5 trait factor, termed “PID-5 Externalizing Proneness,” converged well with criterion measures of externalizing proneness and diverged from measures of threat sensitivity. Findings illustrate how AMPD traits can be configured for use in investigations of biobehavioral risk for psychopathology.

Challenges and ways forward in bridging units of analysis in clinical psychological science.

“…Refining the operationalization of PID-5 Disinhibition through reference to psychophysiology pulled the construct to become a more effective bridge between report-based and neurobiological measures. Further, this new operationalization of disinhibition resulted in improved convergent and discriminant validity, more balanced factor loadings, and higher internal consistency reliability, relative to the original PID-5 disinhibition domain score (Bowyer et al, 2020). These results should not be interpreted to suggest that the internal structure of the PID-5 as originally detailed by Krueger et al (2012) is not accurate; rather, it raises questions about what criteria should be used to determine the essence of a construct.…”

“…Disinhibition scores show theory-consistent associations with self-report criterion variables (Al-Dajani et al, 2016; Krueger et al, 2012). In a recent study, Bowyer et al (2020) examined the latent structure of PID-5 disinhibition in a different manner: through reference to a psychophysiological factor consisting of brain responses thought to reflect cognitive control (Brennan & Baskin-Sommers, 2018; Nelson et al, 2011; Venables, Foell, et al, 2018). When including both PID-5 disinhibition and the physiological indices in a single correlated-factors model, the facet-level structure outlined in the published PID-5 no longer provided good overall fit.…”

“…Patrick et al, 2013Patrick et al, , 2019. As an example, drawing on the abovenoted study by Bowyer et al (2020), the PID-5 Disinhibition scale could be revised iteratively, adding and removing items to optimize its correlation with indices of cognitive control within the physiological unit of analysis (e.g., P300 responses), while retaining acceptable to good psychometric properties. The revised scale would thus be shifted away from a method-specific conceptualization to one that reflects variance in common with measures of disinhibition from other modalities.…”

Reflections on the Personality and Psychopathology Interface in Honor of Scott O. Lilienfeld: Toward Illuminating the Nature of the Processes Underlying Personality Disturbances

“…Joyner and colleagues (2021) showed that trait impulsiveness was uniquely associated with externalizing forms of psychopathology when operationalized as disinhibition, whereas impulsivity that also included negative-affectivity-related content demonstrated associations with internalizing as well as externalizing psychopathology. Along the same lines, recent research has demonstrated that it is important to consider neural referents when configuring scale-level assessments of impulsivity to more effectively reflect neurobehavioral externalizing proneness (Bowyer et al, 2020).…”

“…A further important point is that concepts and measures of impulsiveness derived from dimensional models of personality are based primarily on self-report data. To the extent that such measures are considered in relation to biobehavioral systems and processes, this occurs after their operationalization in the modality of self-report (e.g., Bowyer et al, 2020; Tellegen, 1991). By contrast, developmental representations of dispositional impulsiveness—considered next—are based on the biobehavioral concept of temperament and on observations of behavioral propensities in younger-aged individuals who show evidence of heritability and stability.…”