Representation of personality disorders in circumplex and five-factor space: Explorations with a clinical sample.

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between DSM-IH-R personality disorders and the interpersonal circumplex and Big Five models of personality traits. One hundred and two consecutive referrals for group therapy for personality disorders were evaluated using the Personality Disorder Examination (PDE) and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory II (MCMI-II) personality-disorder scales. Their placement in circumplex space was assessed using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex Scales, whereas their standing on the Big Five traits was measured with the 50-Bipoiar Self-Rating Scales (50-BSRS). We found that many disorders could be meaningfully located in circumplex space, whereas the use of the Big Five model led to even better placement for several disorders. Further examination of the residuals from the PDE, after the 50-BSRS scales were partialed out, indicated that the remaining common variance could also be understood in terms of the Big Five model.The third edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-///; American Psychiatric Association, 1980) introduced operational definitions of personality disorders that were later refined in the DSM-IH-R (American Psychiatric Association, 1987). It has been pointed out that personality disorders as defined in DSM-IIIand DSM-HI-R bear an ambiguous relationship to trait theories as developed by personality psychologists working with normal populations (Clark, Vorhies, & McEwen, in press). Personality disorders occur "when personality traits are inflexible and maladaptive and cause either significant impairment in social or occupational functioning or subjective distress" (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, p. 335). This formulation may be interpreted as suggesting that personalitydisordered persons should exhibit extremes of traits possessed to a less extreme degree by normals. To examine this question, researchers in personality disorder have been encouraged to relate personality pathology to theories of personality traits developed with normal populations.Although there has been much controversy over the decades regarding the best set of traits to use in investigating personal-

Measurement and Statistical Models in the Study of Personality and Intelligence

“…concluded that "parallelism between the circumplex and hierarchical factor models reflects the parallelism between the radex and hierarchical factor models...on abilities." However, Soldz et al (1993) found that while many personality disorders could be located within the circumplex model, their placement within the hierarchical factor model provided a more accurate representation. In Zuckerman's (1991, p. xi) view, "the hierarchical model of traits...is best because it can encompass both broad and narrow traits.…”

“…Brody (1992), and Marshalek, Lohman, and Snow (1983) showed that the factor analytically derived hierarchical model is compatible with Guttman's radex theory. Soldz, Budman, Demby, and Merry (1993) reported that whereas personality disorders can be meaningfully located in circumplex space, application of a hierarchical model enables more appropriate location of several disorders. Cattell (1983) and Eysenck (1991Eysenck ( , 1992 have argued strongly for the importance of hierarchical models (see also the chapter by Stankov, Boyle, & Cattell).…”

“…Soldz et al (1993) provided evidence that psychopathology is often best viewed as the extremes of normally distributed traits, casting doubt on the validity of discrete diagnostic syndrome categories. The factor analytic evidence does not support the MMPI psychiatric syndrome structure (Holden et al, 1983;Eysenck, 1991).…”

Interpersonal Subtypes in Social Phobia: Diagnostic and Treatment Implications

“…The alpha coefficients in this sample ranged from .76 for the Intrusive scale to .88 for the Nonassertive scale. The validity of the IIP-C has been supported in investigations of its relations with various forms of psychopathology (e.g., Kachin et al, 2001;Soldz, Budman, Demby, & Merry, 1993), therapeutic alliance (e.g., Muran et al, 1994), and psychotherapy outcome (e.g., Grosse Holtforth, Lutz, & Grawe, 2006;Maling et al, 1995;Ruiz et al, 2004).…”

Personality Disorders and the Five-Factor Model among French Speakers in Africa and Europe

“…From this perspective, PDs can be considered as an extreme trait level of a normal personality dimension, or as dysfunction associated with general personality traits. 3 Several studies have tried to capture PDs using a large variety of instruments in normal and clinical samples [4][5][6][7] ; however, at the moment there is still no consensus on one particular dimensional model to assess PDs. However, Clark 1 suggested the use of the FFM or some variant of the FFM because it has acquired the status of a reference model for the description of normal personality traits and is widely accepted.…”