Comparability of self- and other-rated personality structure.

Abstract

It is commonly accepted that gathering information via multiple assessment methods (e.g., interview and questionnaire, self-and informant report) is important for establishing construct validity. Although numerous articles report convergent and discriminant agreement correlations between self-and other ratings of personality, studies of the structure of personality from such ratings are less common. The present study addresses this gap using a meta-analytic data set (N range ϭ 157-9,295) of various versions (i.e., self-and other-report, full-length and short alternative format) of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP;Clark, 1993;Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, 2014). We hypothesized that (a) structures across all measure formats would be highly comparable and (b) to the extent that they were dissimilar, perspective (self vs. other) and measure format (long vs. short form), respectively, would influence comparability. Results revealed strong congruence among 3-factor structures (Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotionality, and Disinhibition vs. Constraint) across all versions of the SNAP, suggesting that personality as assessed by this broad measure of personality traits across the normalabnormal spectrum has a robust structure across different rater perspectives and rating formats. Because the comparability analyses were highly congruent and differences among the comparisons were minimal, we concluded-contrary to our expectations-that different formats and different rater perspectives have little effect on structural comparability. Results generally support Funder's (1995) realistic accuracy model, suggesting that trait relevance, cue detection, and information usage are key factors in structuring informant ratings. Limitations of the present study and implications for future research are discussed. Public Significance StatementThe present study provides evidence that the structure of normal-to-abnormal range personality traits is consistent across raters (i.e., self-and other-reports) and formats (i.e., full-length and short alternative formats). Therefore, informants are able to produce structures comparable to those of self-ratings, thus supporting the validity and utility of other-rated traits.

Self and other ratings of problematic smartphone use: The role of personality and relationship type

“…While some research suggests that close others may be just as accurate as focal raters at rating common daily activities (Vazire & Mehl, 2008), this did not appear to be the case for problematic smartphone use. These results are consistent with theories (Funder, 1995;Nuzum et al, 2019) that validity and self-other agreement is directly related to the amount of relevant information possessed by the rater (Connelly & Ones, 2010;Vazire & Mehl, 2008). In the case of problematic smartphone use, there is the extent to which a rater is able to observe a person's smartphone use in a variety of contexts and situations over time.…”

“…Although studies examining other constructs have found reasonable self-other agreement in the field of personality (e.g. H. Kim, Di Domenico, & Connelly, 2019;Nuzum, Ready, & Clark, 2019), and that other-ratings can add unique explanatory information to an assessment of a focal (Tornow, 1993), there are conditions that can enhance or degrade the quality of other-ratings. Valid other-ratings require that the focal behaves in a consistent manner across situations where trait perceptions might be formed (Kenrick & Funder, 1988), and, other-raters must be able to accurately judge the observed behavior (Bernieri, Zuckerman, Koestner, & Rosenthal, 1994).…”

Structure of clinician-reported ICD-11 personality disorder trait qualifiers.

“…Because personality dysfunction is essentially relational in its nature and, thus, interactive in its appearance, the symptoms may not be apparent to or acknowledged by the person with the disorder. In any case, research suggests that some traits converge more strongly than others in terms of self versus other ratings (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Kelley, Edens, & Morey, 2017; McDonald, 2008; Nuzum, Ready, & Clark, 2019). Additionally, informant-report measures have been found to be more externally valid especially for criteria of social nature and functioning as well as more accurate when describing traits that are best observed by others (Connelly & Ones, 2010).…”

Clinician-rated ICD-11 trait domains and personality disorder types.

“…To date, a number of studies have already investigated associations between self-reported ICD-11 trait domains and traditional PD types (Bach et al, 2018; Bach, Kerber, et al, 2020; Fang et al, 2021; García et al, 2022; Kim et al, 2021; Lugo et al, 2019; Sellbom et al, 2020; Sellbom et al, in press; Simon et al, 2023; Sorrel et al, 2022), which overall showed expected and conceptually coherent associations. However, associations have not yet been investigated with respect to clinician ratings performed by practitioners, which is deemed important because self-report bias seems to increase by the severity of personality pathology (e.g., Nuzum et al, 2019). Moreover, clinical practitioners are those who eventually will be using the new diagnostic approach, and clinician ratings therefore seem most relevant for routine clinical practice.…”