Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the Five-Factor Model Personality Disorder Prototype Counts with the Personality Assessment Inventory

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Five-factor model (FFM) personality disorder (PD) prototype scores drawn from the revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) have demonstrated strong convergent validity with clinical measures of PD (Miller in Journal of Personality, 80, 1565–1591, 2012). However, an examination of the relations between the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey 1991), which is widely used in personality assessment research, and the FFM PD prototype “count” method, has not been conducted. The present study examines the convergent validity of the FFM borderline, antisocial, and psychopathy prototype counts with the Borderline Features (BOR) and Antisocial Features (ANT) full scales and subscales from the PAI. Furthermore, the BOR and ANT scales are correlated with all 30 NEO-PI-3 facets to empirically evaluate the rationally-selected facet scales used in the borderline, antisocial, and psychopathy PD counts. Five hundred thirty-five undergraduate students completed both the NEO-PI-3 and the PAI. The PD counts demonstrated strong convergent and discriminant validity with the PAI clinical scales. Facet-level analyses generally supported the structure of the PD count formulas, and the exceptions align with previous evidence that the Competence, Dutifulness, and Self-Discipline facets (from the Conscientiousness domain of the FFM) associate strongly with the BOR scale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: perennial issues and emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 227–257. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual for the NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decuyper, M., De Clerq, B., De Bolle, M., & De Fruyt, F. (2009). Validation of FFM PD counts for screening personality pathology and psychopathy in adolescence. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 587–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edens, J. F., Hart, S. D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, J. K., & Olver, M. E. (2000). Use of the personality assessment inventory to assess psychopathy in offender populations. Psychological Assessment, 12, 132–139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy: Development, structural properties, and new directions. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58–88). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicklin, J., & Widiger, T. A. (2005). Similarities and differences among antisocial and psychopathic self-report inventories from the perspective of general personality functioning. European Journal of Personality, 19, 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F., Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G. C., & Markon, K. E. (2014). DSM-5 and the path toward empirically based and clinically useful conceptualization of personality and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21, 245–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, J. E., Morey, L. C., & Tomarken, A. J. (1993). The concurrent validity of three self-report measures of borderline personality. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 15, 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, E. M., Shields, A. J., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2011). Five-factor model personality disorder prototypes in a community sample: Self- and informant-reports predicting interview-based DSM diagnoses. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2, 279–292. doi:10.1037/a0022617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, J. R., Edmundson, M., & Widiger, T. A. (2009). Assessment of dependency, agreeableness, and their relationship. Psychological Assessment, 21, 543–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: an expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 3, 401–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynam, D. R., Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Mullins-Sweatt, S. M., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: development and validation of the elemental psychopathy assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23, 108–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). NEO inventories: Professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: a more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 261–270. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D. (2012). Five-factor model personality disorder prototypes: a review of their development, validity, and comparison to alternative approaches. Journal of Personality, 80, 1565–1591. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00773.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2008). Dependent personality disorder: comparing an expert generated and empirically derived five-factor model personality disorder count. Assessment, 15, 4–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: can the five-factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Reynolds, S. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2004). The validity of the five-factor model prototypes for personality disorders in two clinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 16, 310–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Bagby, R. M., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2005a). A comparison of the validity of the five-factor model (FFM) personality disorder prototypes using FFM self-report and interview measures. Psychological Assessment, 17, 497–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Bagby, R. M., Pilkonis, P. A., Reynolds, S. K., & Lynam, D. R. (2005b). A simplified technique for scoring DSM-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model. Assessment, 12, 404–415. doi:10.1177/1073191105280987.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Rolland, J. P., De Fruyt, F., Reynolds, S. K., Pham-Scottez, A., Baker, S. R., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). 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. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 433–450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Maples, J., Few, L. R., Morse, J. Q., Yaggi, K. E., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2010). Using clinican-rated five-factor model data to score the DSM-IV personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 296–305.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (1991). Professional manual for the personality assessment inventory. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Edmundson, M., Sauer-Zavala, S., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). Five-factor measure of borderline personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 475–487.

  • Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2006). Perceptions of self and others regarding pathological personality traits. In R. F. Krueger & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 71–111). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of psychopathy. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, D. B., Edmundson, M., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Five-factor model prototype matching scores: convergence within alternative methods. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 571–585.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Skodol, A. E. (2005). Manifestations, clinical diagnosis, and comorbidity. In J. M. Oldham, A. E. Skodol, & D. S. Bender (Eds.), The American psychiatric publishing textbook of personality disorders (pp. 37–61). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., Lynam, D. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Borderline personality disorder from the perspective of general personality functioning. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 193–202. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.2.193.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 71–83. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Dubo, E. D., Sickel, A. E., Trikha, A., Levin, A., & Reynolds, V. (1998). Axis I comorbidity of borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 1733–1739.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Evan Good, Nicole Cross, Lindsey Bupp, Kelly McCusker, Mark Versella, Nicholas Brown, Jimena Escolan, Mary-Kate Duffy, and Kristen Panny for their assistance with protocol administration and data management.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, 111-D Kastle Hall, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA

    Joshua R. Oltmanns

  2. Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

    Hilary L. DeShong

  3. College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Catherine A. Sanders

  4. Department of Psychology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

    John E. Kurtz

Authors
  1. Joshua R. Oltmanns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hilary L. DeShong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine A. Sanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John E. Kurtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua R. Oltmanns.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Joshua R. Oltmanns, Hilary L. DeShong, Catherine A. Sanders, and John E. Kurtz declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Experiment Participants

This project was approved by the Villanova University Institutional Review Board. Research participants were provided informed consent prior to participation.

Appendix

Appendix

Formulas for calculating PD counts from the NEO-PI facets

Antisocial = n1r + n2 + n4r + n5 + e3 + e4 + e5 + o4 + a1r + a2r + a3r + a4r + a5r + a6r + c3r + c5r + c6r.

Borderline = n1 + n2 + n3 + n5 + n6 + o3 + o4 + a4r + c6r.

*Psychopathy = n1r + n3r + n4r + n5 + n6r + e1r + e3 + e5 + o3r + o4 + a1r + a2r + a3r + a4r + a5r + a6r + c1 + c3r + c5r + c6r.

Paranoid = n2 + e1r + e2r + o4r + o6r + a1r + a2r + a3r + a4r + a6r.

Schizoid = e1r + e2r + e3r + e4r + e5r + e6r + o3r + o4r.

Schizotypal = n1 + n4 + o5 + e1r + e2r + e6r + c2r.

Histrionic = n4r + n5 + e2 + e4 + e5 + e6 + o1 + o3 + o4 + a1 + c5r + c6r.

Narcissistic = n2 + n4r + e3 + e5 + e1r + o3r + o4 + a1r + a2r + a3r + a4r + a5r + a6r.

Avoidant = n1 + n4 + n5r + n6 + a5 + e2r + e3r + e5r + e6r + o4r.

Obsessive-Compulsive = n1 + n5r + c1 + c2 + c3 + c4 + c5 + c6 + e5r + o3r + o4r + o5r + o6r.

**Dependent = n1 + n3 + n4 + n6 + c1r + c5r.

Note. r = reverse-scored. Formulas from Lynam and Widiger (2001). * = psychopathy formula from Miller et al. (2001), ** = dependent formula from Miller and Lynam (2008).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oltmanns, J.R., DeShong, H.L., Sanders, C.A. et al. Validation of the Five-Factor Model Personality Disorder Prototype Counts with the Personality Assessment Inventory. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 38, 590–599 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-016-9549-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-016-9549-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation