Negative emotionality across diagnostic models: RDoC, DSM-5 Section III, and FFM.

The research domain criteria (RDoC) were established in an effort to explore underlying dimensions that cut across many existing disorders and to provide an alternative to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). One purpose of the present study was to suggest a potential alignment of RDoC negative valence with 2 other dimensional models of negative emotionality: five-factor model (FFM) neuroticism and the DSM-5 Section III negative affectivity. A second purpose of the study, though, was to compare their coverage of negative emotionality, more specifically with respect to affective instability. Participants were adult community residents (N = 90) currently in mental health treatment. Participants received self-report measures of RDoC negative valence, FFM neuroticism, and DSM-5 Section III negative affectivity, along with measures of affective instability, borderline personality disorder, and impairment. Findings suggested that RDoC negative valence is commensurate with FFM neuroticism and DSM-5 Section III negative affectivity, and it would be beneficial if it was expanded to include affective instability. (PsycINFO Database Record

Examination of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment System as a Measure of Disability Severity Among Veterans Receiving Cognitive Processing Therapy.

Cognitive processing therapy (CPT) is effective for reducing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression among military veterans. However, studies have not examined whether CPT is associated with reductions in disability severity. The current study examines the association between disability severity and PTSD and depression among U.S. veterans who are receiving CPT. Veterans completed measures at pre- and posttreatment and received CPT through a Veterans Affairs PTSD outpatient (n = 155) or residential (n = 177) program. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 was used to assess disability severity. The WHODAS 2.0 scores were positively correlated with clinician- and veteran-rated PTSD and veteran-rated depression at pre- and posttreatment (r = .22 to. 60). Compared with outpatients, veterans in residential treatment had worse scores on the WHODAS Mobility scale (ηp2 = .03), but on no other WHODAS 2.0 scales. Pre- to posttreatment reductions were found on all WHODAS 2.0 subscales (ηp2 = .03 to .15). Reductions in PTSD and depression were positively associated with improvements on the WHODAS 2.0 Summary scale and most subscales (r = .22 to. 52). Findings suggest that the WHODAS 2.0 is a promising disability severity measure for veterans in PTSD treatment. Findings also suggest that CPT may help veterans to achieve reductions in disability severity.

A Comparison of Veterans Who Repeat Versus Who Do Not Repeat a Course of Manualized, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

Despite evidence that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is effective, some individuals do not experience clinically significant reduction or remission of their PTSD symptoms. These individuals may return for additional PTSD-focused psychotherapy. However, there is no research to know whether PTSD treatment repeaters have worse symptoms prior to the initial treatment episode or display differences in other pretreatment characteristics versus nonrepeaters. Research is also needed to explore whether treatment repeaters exhibit PTSD symptom changes during an initial or second course of treatment. The current study examines differences in pretreatment characteristics and treatment response among U.S. military veterans who participated in either a single course (n = 711) or in two separate courses (n = 87) of CBT for PTSD through an outpatient Veterans Affairs PTSD treatment program. Veterans completing two courses of CBT for PTSD were more likely to be married and employed and more likely to drop out of their initial course of treatment versus those who completed a single course. Hierarchical linear models showed that reductions in PTSD symptoms during treatment were not different for those who completed a second versus single course of CBT for PTSD. However, for those participating in two courses of CBT for PTSD, a relapse in PTSD symptoms was observed between the first and second course. These findings show that a second course of CBT may be viable for those with ongoing PTSD symptoms.

Fluctuation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

Current literature on narcissistic personality disorder has emphasized a distinction between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Some researchers have further suggested that narcissistic persons fluctuate between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. However, this perception has been confined largely to clinical experience with no systematic research testing the hypothesis. Clinicians and clinical psychology professors in the current study identified 143 persons who fit a description of either a grandiose or a vulnerable narcissist and indicated the extent to which these persons ever demonstrated traits of the complementary variant. The results supported the fluctuation hypothesis, particularly for episodes of vulnerable narcissism in persons identified as a grandiose narcissist. Correlations of the grandiose and vulnerable narcissism traits with a brief five-factor model measure corroborated past trait descriptions of the 2 respective variants of narcissism. The results of the current study are compared with existing cross-sectional and longitudinal research, and suggestions for future research are provided. (PsycINFO Database Record

Assessment of dependency by the FFDI: Comparisons to the PID-5 and maladaptive agreeableness.

The present study explores the validity of the Five Factor Dependency Inventory (FFDI), a measure of dependent personality traits from the perspective of the five factor model, examined across three separate samples and two studies. The first study examined the FFDI with respect to the traits assigned to assess dependent personality disorder (DPD) by the DSM-5 work group, two measures of DSM-IV-TR DPD and three measures of dependent traits, sampling 184 Mechanical Turk participants and 83 students (the latter oversampled for DPD features). Based on responses from an additional 137 students, the second study investigated the role of maladaptive agreeableness in dependency by examining the FFDI in relation to the interpersonal circumplex using three alternative measures. Discriminant validity was provided with respect to DSM-5 traits and the interpersonal circumplex. Incremental validity was provided with respect to the ability of the FFDI to account for variance within DPD measures beyond the variance explained by DSM-5 traits. Implications for the assessment of dependency and the proposed DSM-5 dimensional trait model are discussed.

The discriminant (and convergent) validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5.

A considerable body of research has rapidly accumulated with respect to the validity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) dimensional trait model as it is assessed by the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012). This research though has not focused specifically on discriminant validity, although allusions to potentially problematic discriminant validity have been raised. The current study addressed discriminant validity, reporting for the first time the correlations among the PID-5 domain scales. Also reported are the bivariate correlations of the 25 PID-5 maladaptive trait scales with the personality domain scales of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the International Personality Item Pool-NEO (Goldberg et al., 2006), the Inventory of Personal Characteristics (Almagor et al., 1995), the 5-Dimensional Personality Test (van Kampen, 2012), and the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (Lee & Ashton, 2004). The results are discussed with respect to the implications of and alternative explanations for potentially problematic discriminant validity. (PsycINFO Database Record

Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes an alternative model of personality disorders (PDs) in Section III, consisting in part of a pathological personality trait model. To date, the 220-item Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) is the only extant self-report instrument explicitly developed to measure this pathological trait model. The present study used item response theory-based analyses in a large sample (n = 1,417) to investigate whether a reduced set of 100 items could be identified from the PID-5 that could measure the 25 traits and 5 domains. This reduced set of PID-5 items was then tested in a community sample of adults currently receiving psychological treatment (n = 109). Across a wide range of criterion variables including NEO PI-R domains and facets, DSM-5 Section II PD scores, and externalizing and internalizing outcomes, the correlational profiles of the original and reduced versions of the PID-5 were nearly identical (rICC = .995). These results provide strong support for the hypothesis that an abbreviated set of PID-5 items can be used to reliably, validly, and efficiently assess these personality disorder traits. The ability to assess the DSM-5 Section III traits using only 100 items has important implications in that it suggests these traits could still be measured in settings in which assessment-related resources (e.g., time, compensation) are limited.

The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five-factor models of general personality.

The current study tests empirically the relationship of the dimensional trait model proposed for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) with five-factor models of general personality. The DSM-5 maladaptive trait dimensional model proposal included 25 traits organized within five broad domains (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism). Consistent with the authors of the proposal, it was predicted that negative affectivity would align with five-factor model (FFM) neuroticism, detachment with FFM introversion, antagonism with FFM antagonism, disinhibition with low FFM conscientiousness and, contrary to the proposal; psychoticism would align with FFM openness. Three measures of alternative five-factor models of general personality were administered to 445 undergraduates along with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. The results provided support for the hypothesis that all five domains of the DSM-5 dimensional trait model are maladaptive variants of general personality structure, including the domain of psychoticism.

A five-factor measure of dependent personality traits.

This study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of dependent personality traits from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM). Dependent personality trait scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of FFM facets (e.g., Gullibility as a maladaptive variant of FFM trust). Based on responses from 383 undergraduates, the convergent validity of the Five-Factor Dependency Inventory (FFDI) scales was tested with respect to 2 measures of the FFM, 6 dependency trait scales, and 4 measures of dependent personality disorder. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to FFM facets from alternative domains. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM dependent personality trait scales to account for variance in 2 established measures of dependency, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facet scales and other measures of DPD was first removed. The results of this study provided support for the validity of the FFDI assessment of dependency from the perspective of the FFM.

Maladaptive variants of conscientiousness and agreeableness.

Although reasonably strong support has been obtained for the Five-Factor Model's (FFM) ability to account for the existing personality disorder (PD) constructs, the support for obsessive-compulsive PD (OCPD) and dependent PD (DPD) has been relatively less consistent. Specifically, the expected correlation between OCPD and the FFM trait of Conscientiousness has varied in magnitude across studies while DPD has, at times, also evinced rather weak relationships with FFM Agreeableness. We determined that these inconsistencies were due primarily to the reliance on FFM measures that lack adequate fidelity to assess the maladaptive aspects of high Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. When alternative measures were utilized, the correlations were generally large and in line with expectations. We conclude that OCPD and DPD can be fruitfully conceptualized within the FFM but encourage the use of measures that provide a comprehensive assessment of both the adaptive and maladaptive aspects of the FFM traits.

A five-factor measure of schizotypal personality traits.

The current study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of schizotypy from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Nine schizotypy scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of respective facets of the FFM (e.g., Aberrant Ideas as a maladaptive variant of FFM Openness to Ideas). On the basis of data from 143 undergraduates, the convergent validity of these nine scales was tested with respect to seven established measures of schizotypy and the respective facets of the FFM. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to facets from other FFM domains and components of schizotypy. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM schizotypy scales to account for variance in two established measures of schizotypy, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facets and other established measures of schizotypy were first removed. The findings support the validity of these new scales as measures of schizotypal traits and as maladaptive variants of the FFM.