Development and Validation of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality Brief Self-Description Rating Form (SNAP-BSRF)

Abstract

The Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality full-length (SNAP) and short versions (SNAP-SRF and SNAP-ORF) were developed as measures of normal-range and more pathological personality traits. This study investigated the validity of the SNAP Brief Self-Description Rating Form (SNAP-BSRF), an alternative version of the SNAP Self-Description Rating Form (SNAP-SRF) revised for further brevity. The scales of the SNAP-BSRF showed good convergence with the SNAP-SRF and the SNAP Other-Description Rating Form (SNAP-ORF) scales. A three-factor structure consistent with extant literature was found for the SNAP-BSRF using an exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Scales from the SNAP-BSRF showed meaningful associations with self-reported internalizing symptoms. Results suggest that this new version is a reasonable substitute for the SNAP-SRF and will be useful when a very brief measure of adaptive and maladaptive personality is needed.

Parent personality and children's inattention/hyperactivity problems are related via early caregiving

“…Except for Mistrust, we did not observe significant associations between self‐ and informant‐reported SNAP traits. This is consistent with previous findings demonstrating low agreement between self‐ and informant‐reported personality (Harlan & Clark, 1999; Kotelnikova et al, 2015; Ready et al, 2002). In addition, self‐reported caregiver SNAP traits were unrelated to their parenting.…”

“…As we were interested in interpersonal traits that may be related to hostile and responsive parenting, self‐ and informant‐reported subscales assessing the following traits were included in this study: Aggression (two items; α self = .31; α informant = .45; AIC self = .18; AIC informant = .29; SB self = .31; SB informant = .45; e.g., easy to lose temper and hold on to anger vs. does not lose temper easily and quick to forgive and forget), negative temperament (NT; three items; α self = .77; α informant = .79; AIC self = .53; AIC informant = .56; e.g., moody and emotionally labile vs. even‐tempered) and mistrust (two items; α self = .61; α informant = .69; AIC self = .44; AIC informant = .53; SB self = .62; SB informant = .69; e.g., seldom trust others and expect to be let down by others vs. trust easily). Our reliability coefficients are generally similar to those reported by Harlan and Clark (1999) and others (Kotelnikova, Clark, Vernon, & Hayden, 2015; Ready & Clark, 2002; Ready, Watson, & Clark, 2002; Schalet, Durbin, & Revelle, 2011), except for self‐reported aggression, which was relatively low (although all internal consistency values are within the expected range for scales with only two or three items). We provide average interitem correlations (AIC) as indices of the scales' internal consistency independent of scale length (Clark & Watson, 2019), as well as the Spearman‐Brown (SB) statistic for the aggression and mistrust scales, another reliability index recommended for two‐item scales (Eisinga, Te Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013).…”

“…In addition, our study investigated associations between traits and their behavioural manifestation, that is, parenting, which may be more accessible to an observer than to the target. The poor convergence between self‐ and informant‐report of personality has been well‐documented in the literature (Harkness, Tellegen, & Waller, 1995; Kotelnikova et al, 2015; Ready et al, 2002) and speaks to the value of incorporating multiple sources of information in the measurement of personality, particularly when studying how they relate to behavioural phenomena. Although this study included multiple informants of parent personality, we relied on the primary caregiver's report of child symptoms given children's young age which limits our ability to collect self‐report of symptoms.…”

Validity of a Novel Touch Screen Tablet-Based Assessment for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable AD in Older Adults

“…The results of CFA for the model showed that χ 2 = 90.27, df = 58, χ 2 / df = 1.56, Bollen–Stine bootstrap, p = .192, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.84, and RMSEA = 0.07. The values of GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA were considered acceptable (Anestis, Gottfried, & Joiner, 2015; Cohen & Williamson, 1988; Hair et al, 1998; Kotelnikova, Clark, Vernon, & Hayden, 2015; Nixon & Oscar, 1989). Thus, the four-factor model was confirmed by the CFA (Figure 2).…”