The Representation of Borderline, Avoidant, Obsessive-Compulsive, and Schizotypal Personality Disorders by the Five-Factor Model

Abstract

This study evaluated the accuracy of hypothesized relationships of the five-factor model of personality to four targeted personality disorders in a large multisite sample of patients. Data were gathered from 668 patients, who were assigned to one of five study cells: Borderline, Schizotypal, Avoidant, and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, and a Major Depression without personality disorder comparison group. Patients were administered a questionnaire designed to assess the domains and facets of the five-factor model and results were compared among diagnostic groups and between patients and community norms. Although many relationships between personality traits and disorders were obtained, the magnitude of the relationships varied greatly as a function of the comparison group involved. In general, the differences between the personality disorder patients and community norms were far larger than the differences between the specific personality disorder groups. Also, for avoidant personality, it appeared that statistical interactions between personality factors are needed to better differentiate it from other personality disorder groups. The four personality disorder groups studied could each be distinguished from community norms on the personality dimensions of the five-factor model. However, differentiating among the four groups proved more difficult, as each shared the configuration of high Neuroticism, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness. It does not appear that these disorders represent extremes of different personality dimensions, but rather each appears to be a variant of the same extreme configuration. Differences between personality disorders may reflect diverse interactions among the dimensions, rather than differences on single dimensions.

Personality Assessment in DSM-5: Empirical Support for Rating Severity, Style, and Traits

“…Analogous to broad severity constructs such as Kernberg's personality organization, the GAF score to represent psychiatric severity more broadly, or the "g" factor in intelligence (Spearman, 1904), correlations of this dimension with PD criteria highlight the influence of multiple psychological domains, including the social (e.g., feelings of inadequacy and ineptness, paranoia), the self (identity problems), and emotion (anger). Moreover, correlations with personality traits are consistent with previous results (e.g., Morey, Gunderson, Quigley, & Lyons, 2000;Morey et al, 2002;Saulsman & Page, 2004) in suggesting that a constellation of traits in a particularly maladaptive direction, rather than one or two specific and extreme traits, can lead to a broad propensity for personality pathology.…”

“…In fact, given that a similar normative trait constellation involving high levels of neuroticism combined with low extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness generally characterizes PD (Morey et al, 2002;Saulsman & Page, 2004), traits might be anticipated to relate as strongly to a general PD severity composite as to stylistic elements of PD. As suggested in Bornstein's model, normative traits are also clinically important for reasons beyond their correspondence to PD constructs or their ability to depict PD propensity more generally, including their ability to depict different kinds of dysfunction specifically (Hopwood et al, 2009) whether or not an individual has a PD .…”

Comparison of alternative models for personality disorders

“…The demonstration that the FFM and SNAP share content with a third model is a matter of convergent rather than predictive validity insofar as the DSM, FFM and SNAP represent three distinct efforts to conceptualize individuals characterized by similar features. In previous reports (Morey et al 2002(Morey et al , 2003 we have noted convergences between these different approaches to personality description. However, common among theoretical systems of diagnostic acceptability (Robins & Guze, 1970 ;Kendell, 1975 ;Blashfield & Draguns, 1976) is the notion that predictive validity is more directly pertinent to the selection of diagnostic models than convergent validity, or, as Kendell (1975) noted, 'all diagnostic concepts stand or fall by the strength of the prognostic and therapeutic implications they embody ' (p. 40).…”

“…Internal consistency reliabilities for the five domains in this sample (Morey et al 2002) ranged from 0 . 87 to 0 .…”

The Longitudinal Relationship of Personality Traits and Disorders.

“…Costa and Widiger (1994) suggest that "the FFM is the most adequate and comprehensive taxonomy for describing personality and for understanding problems associated with personalities or personality disorders" (p. 3), and the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) PD categories have been described in terms of the FFM and its lower order facets (Costa & Widiger, 2002). Although limitations of the FFM as applied to PDs have been noted (e.g., Clark, 1993;Morey et al, 2002;Coolidge et al, 1994), there are clear cross-sectional relationships between certain of these traits and the PD constructs. However, there is little evidence of any longitudinal relationship among these disorders, evidence of which could clarify the nature of causal linkages between these traits and disorders.…”