Scoring the DSM-IV Personality Disorders Using the Five-Factor Model: Development and Validation of Normative Scores for North American, French, and Dutch-Flemish Samples

Abstract

Five-Factor Model (FFM) personality disorder (PD) counts have demonstrated significant convergent and discriminant validity with DSM-IV PD symptoms. However, these FFM PD counts are of limited clinical use without normative data because it is difficult to determine what a specific score means with regard to the relative level of elevation. The current study presents data from three large normative samples that can be used as norms for the FFM PD counts in the respective countries: United States (N = 1,000), France (N = 801), and Belgium-Netherlands (N = 549). The present study also examines the performance, with regard to diagnostic efficiency, of statistically-defined cut-offs at 1.5 standard deviations above the mean (T > or = 65) versus previously identified cut-offs using receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) analyses. These cut-offs are tested in three clinical samples-one from each of the aforementioned countries. In general, the T > or = 65 cut-offs performed similarly to those identified using ROC analyses and manifested properties relevant to a screening instrument. These normative data allow FFM data to be used in a flexible and comprehensive manner, which may include scoring this type of personality data in order to screen for DSM-IV PD constructs.

Validation of the FFM PD count technique for screening personality pathology in later middle-aged and older adults

“…Following these steps, the best working count for each PD was selected, and these 10 counts were then subjected to one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs), in order to evaluate their screening capacity for PDs. According to a statistical deviance model, individuals scoring 1.5 SD above average were considered to have 'extreme' scores, possibly reflecting problematic levels of the PD in question (Miller et al, 2008). Thus, T-scores were computed and used as benchmarks.…”

“…It is important to note that normative data are crucial to determine the relative level of elevation of a specific score, because individual counts are difficult to interpret and of limited clinical use without a standard to compare with (Miller et al, 2008). Miller et al (2008) presented data from normative samples from the USA, France, and Belgium-Netherlands that can be used as norms for the FFM PD counts based on Lynam and Widiger's (2001) prototypes in the respective countries.…”

“…Miller et al (2008) presented data from normative samples from the USA, France, and Belgium-Netherlands that can be used as norms for the FFM PD counts based on Lynam and Widiger's (2001) prototypes in the respective countries.…”

“…In particular, the validation of the FFM PD count technique, relies -to our knowledge -almost exclusively on adolescent (Decuyper, De Clercq, de Bolle, & de Fruyt, 2009) and younger adult samples with mean ages ranging from 25.8 (Miller et al, 2008) to 41.4 (Miller et al, 2005). Only recently, a study of Lawton, Shields, and Oltmanns (2011) extended this literature by validating the FFM PD count technique in a large community-dwelling sample of later middle-aged adults with ages ranging between 55 and 64 years.…”

Temporele instabiliteit van persoonlijkheidskenmerken op oudere leeftijd.

“…Inmiddels zijn de vijf factoren ook gerelateerd aan de DSM-persoonlijkheidsstoornissen. 10,11 Een beschrijving van adaptieve en maladaptieve profielscores van de in totaal dertig facetten van het VFM is voorhanden voor jongere volwassenen, maar niet voor ouderen. 11,12 Gezien de leeftijdsspecifieke biologische, psychologische en sociale veranderingen gedurende de levensloop bestaat de kans dat de uniciteit van de persoonlijkheidaspecten van ouderen diagnostisch wordt onderbelicht indien wordt uitgegaan van testnormeringen van jongere volwassenen.…”