Identifying Personality Pathology Associated With Major Depressive Episodes: Incremental Validity of Informant Reports

Galione, Janine N.; Oltmanns, Thomas F.

doi:10.1080/00223891.2013.825624

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Historically, this work has largely relied on subjective self-reports to assess personality, perhaps because researchers previously have questioned the value of collateral informants (e.g., spouse, coworker) in terms of cost, psychometric properties, incremental value (i.e., relative to self-reports), and compliance with completing reports that assess others’ personality traits (for a review, see Vazire, 2006). Importantly, a great deal of research in these areas now indicates that collateral informants’ personality reports (a) can provide cost-efficient, reliable, and valid information about others’ personality traits; (b) can be administered via multiple formats (e.g., in-person clinical assessments, online assessments); and (c) predict variance in external criterion variables over-and-above self-report personality measures (e.g., Balsis, Cooper, & Oltmanns, 2015; Galione & Oltmanns, 2013; Vazire & Mehl, 2008). Yet, with some exceptions (cf.…”

Section: Research and Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Interpretability of Subjective Assessments About Psychological Phenomena: A Review and Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis

Reyes

Lerner

Keeley

et al. 2019

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attempts to understand subjectivity have historically involved distinguishing the strengths of subjective methods (e.g., survey ratings from informants) from those of alternative methods (e.g., observational/performance-based tasks). Yet a movement is underway in Psychology that considers the merits of intersubjectivity: Understanding the space between two or more informant’s subjective impressions of a common person or phenomenon. In mental health research, understanding differences between subjective impressions have less to do with informants’ characteristics and more to do with the social environments or contexts germane to the people or phenomena examined. Our article focuses on one relatively understudied social environment: the cultural context. We draw from seminal work on psychological universals, as well as emerging work on cultural norms (i.e., cultural tightness) to understand intersubjectivity effects through a cross-cultural lens. We report a meta-analysis of 314 studies of intersubjectivity effects in mental health, revealing that (a) this work involves independent research teams in more than 30 countries, (b) informants rating a target person’s mental health (e.g., parent and teacher ratings of a child’s behavior) commonly provide diverging estimates of that person’s mental health, and (c) greater convergence between subjective reports relates to a “tighter” or more norms-bound culture. Our article illustrates strategies for understanding divergence between subjective reports. In particular, we highlight theoretical and methodological frameworks for examining patterns of divergence between subjective reports in relation to data from nonsubjective methods. We also describe how research on intersubjectivity informs efforts to improve the interpretability of subjective assessments in multiple subdisciplines in Psychology.

show abstract

Section: Research and Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Interpretability of Subjective Assessments About Psychological Phenomena: A Review and Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis

Reyes

Lerner

Keeley

et al. 2019

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neither source is necessarily more valid than the other. Incremental validity analyses have even demonstrated that-for some purposes and under certain conditions-informant-reports of personality disorder traits predict behavior and consequential outcomes over and above self-reports (Cruitt & Oltmanns, 2018;Galione & Oltmanns, 2013;Ready, Watson, & Clark, 2002). For example, informant-reports of personality disorder traits are predictive of targets' dismissal from the military (Fiedler et al, 2004), neutralobserver behavioral ratings (Kaurin et al, 2018), and social adjustment (Klein, 2003) over and above self-reports.…”

Section: Self-other Agreement On Ratings Of Personality Disorder Sympmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self–Other Agreement on Ratings of Personality Disorder Symptoms and Traits: Three Meta-Analyses

Oltmanns¹,

Oltmanns²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present chapter considers the factors important to self–other agreement on personality disorder, reviews the literature on this topic, and presents 3 meta-analyses with a total of 53 studies of self–other agreement on personality disorder (total N = 11,812). Meta-analyses were completed on 1) overall self–other agreement on personality disorder symptoms and traits, 2) self–other agreement on DSM personality disorders, and 3) self–other agreement on maladaptive personality traits measured dimensionally by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Overall median self-other agreement was r = .37. Self–other agreement on DSM PDs ranged from r = . 32 (dependent PD) to r = .51 (antisocial PD). Median self–other agreement was somewhat higher on the PID-5 maladaptive trait domains (r = .45), which is in line with prior estimates of the magnitude of self–other agreement on “normal” FFM trait domains.

show abstract

“…In the clinical domain, research has further revealed that informant ratings of targets' (patients') personality disorder features or maladaptive personality traits, respectively, contribute uniquely to the prediction of future depressive symptomatology, personality disorders, and general social functioning of targets (Galione & Oltmanns, 2013;Klein, 2003;Lawton, Shields, & Oltmanns, 2011;Ready, Watson, & Clark, 2002). Likewise, informant reports of military recruits' personality disorder features yielded incremental accuracy for the prediction of early discharge from military (Fiedler, Oltmanns, & Turkheimer, 2004).…”

Section: Unique Predictive Accuracy Of Informant Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing is Knowing: On the Predictive Accuracy of Self– and Informant Reports for Prosocial and Moral Behaviours

Thielmann

Zimmermann

Leising³

et al. 2017

Eur J Pers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under certain circumstances, well‐known others (so‐called informants) may possess unique insights into targets' personality traits beyond the targets' self‐views. Specifically, as proposed by the self–other knowledge asymmetry model, an incremental predictive ability of informants is most likely for traits and corresponding behaviours that are clearly visible to others and highly evaluative in nature. In two studies, we provide an empirical test of this proposition and extend prior research to one of the most important domains of interpersonal interaction: prosocial and moral behaviours. Specifically, we investigate the unique predictive power of informant reports in trait Honesty–Humility for fairness in the dictator game and dishonesty in a cheating paradigm. Importantly, while both these classes of behaviour are highly evaluative in nature, only fairness is clearly visible to others. Correspondingly, in line with the self–other knowledge asymmetry model, our results reveal unique predictive accuracy of informant reports for fairness. For dishonesty, by contrast, there was no conclusive evidence for incremental predictive power of informant reports. This implies that informants may indeed provide valuable information beyond targets' self‐reports on trait aspects driving fair behaviour, but that targets themselves are their own best experts when it comes to judging trait aspects driving dishonest behaviour. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology

show abstract

Identifying Personality Pathology Associated With Major Depressive Episodes: Incremental Validity of Informant Reports

Cited by 20 publications

References 43 publications

Improving Interpretability of Subjective Assessments About Psychological Phenomena: A Review and Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis

Improving Interpretability of Subjective Assessments About Psychological Phenomena: A Review and Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis

Self–Other Agreement on Ratings of Personality Disorder Symptoms and Traits: Three Meta-Analyses

Seeing is Knowing: On the Predictive Accuracy of Self– and Informant Reports for Prosocial and Moral Behaviours

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About