Schizotypy from the Perspective of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Traits: a Study on a Sample of 1056 Italian Adult University Students

  • Antonella SommaEmail author
  • Robert F. Krueger
  • Kristian E. Markon
  • Serena Borroni
  • Andrea Fossati


To assess the relationships between schizotypy measures and DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) traits, 1056 (69.4% female; mean age = 23.30 years) University students, were administered the Italian translation of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ), Schizotypal Personality Scale (STA), Schizotypy Scale (SS), and Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) suggested that the SPQ, STA, and SS Schizofrenism scale total scores may represent primary measures of schizotypy/Schizotypal personality disorder (PD), whereas the SS anhedonia (AH) total score represent an index of the general anhedonia level. MAMBAC, MAXCOV, and LMode taxometric analyses showed that both schizotypy and anhedonia constructs had a dimensional distribution (all comparison curve fit index values<.40). Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported a two-factor model of SPQ, STA, SS SZ and SS AH scale total scores. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that DSM-5 AMPD traits that were hypothesized to define the Schizotypal PD profile (i.e., Cognitive and Perceptual Dysregulation, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Eccentricity, Restricted Affectivity, Withdrawal, and Suspiciousness), as well as the additional specifiers (i.e., Anxiousness, and Depressivity) explained 66.0% of the systematic variance in the schizotypy factor scale scores. Our findings suggested that schizotypy could be represented as a continuously-distributed latent variable which may be effectively described in terms of a coherent system of dysfunctional personality traits.


Schizotypy Alternative model of personality disorder criterion B Schizotypal personality questionnaire Schizotypal personality scale Schizotypy scale Personality inventory for DSM-5 



The authors wish to thank Chiara Arvigo, Novella Bragaglia, and Martina Zaccaria and for their invaluable help in the data collection process.


Dr. Krueger was partly supported by NIH (R01AG053217; U19AG051426; R21AA025689) and by the Templeton Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Experiment Participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10862_2019_9718_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 19 kb)


  1. Ahmed, A. O., Green, B. A., Goodrum, N. M., Doane, N. J., Birgenheir, D., & Buckley, P. F. (2013). Does a latent class underlie schizotypal personality disorder? Implications for schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  5. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, J., Snider, S., Sellbom, M., Krueger, R., & Hopwood, C. (2014). A comparison of the DSM-5 section II and section III personality disorder structures. Psychiatry Research, 216(3), 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2017). Prior-posterior predictive P-values. Mplus Web Notes: No. 22, Version 2. Retrieved from: Accessed 23 Dec 2018.
  8. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136–136.Google Scholar
  10. Chmielewski, M., Bagby, R. M., Markon, K., Ring, A. J., & Ryder, A. G. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, schizotypal personality disorder, and psychoticism: resolving the controversy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chun, C. A., Barrantes-Vidal, N., Sheinbaum, T., & Kwapil, T. R. (2017). Expression of schizophrenia-spectrum personality traits in daily life. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Claridge, G., & Broks, P. (1984). Schizotypy and hemisphere function: I. Theoretical considerations and the measurement of schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 633–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Claridge, G., & Hewitt, J. K. (1987). A biometrical study of schizotypy in a normal population. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 227–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2016). Convergent and discriminant validity of alternative measures of maladaptive personality traits. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1561–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2017). The conceptualization and assessment of schizotypal traits: a comparison of the FFSI and PID-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 606–623. Scholar
  18. DeYoung, C. G., Shamosh, N. A., Green, A. E., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Intellect as distinct from openness: differences revealed by fMRI of working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 883–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeYoung, C. G., Carey, B. E., Krueger, R. F., & Ross, S. R. (2016). Ten aspects of the big five in the personality inventory for DSM–5. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dillon, W. R., & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate analysis: methods and applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Edmundson, M., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., Gore, W. L., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). A five-factor measure of schizotypal personality traits. Assessment, 18, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fossati, A., Raine, A., Carretta, I., Leonardi, B., & Maffei, C. (2003). The three-factor model of schizotypal personality: invariance across age and gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1007–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fossati, A., Raine, A., Borroni, S., & Maffei, C. (2007). Taxonic structure of schizotypal personality in nonclinical subjects: issues of replicability and age consistency. Psychiatry Research, 152, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fossati, A., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Borroni, S., & Maffei, C. (2013). Reliability and validity of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) predicting DSM-IV personality disorders and psychopathy in community-dwelling Italian adults. Assessment, 20, 689–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gelman, A., Meng, X. L., & Stern, H. (1996). Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies. Statistica Sinica, 6, 733–760.Google Scholar
  26. Genetic Risk and Outcome in Psychosis (GROUP) Investigators. (2011). Evidence that familial liability for psychosis is expressed as differential sensitivity to cannabis: an analysis of patient-sibling and sibling-control pairs. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68, 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gogtay, N., Vyas, N. S., Testa, R., Wood, S. J., & Pantelis, C. (2011). Age of onset of schizophrenia: perspectives from structural neuroimaging studies. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37, 504–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gross, T. R. (2014). Comparing the factor structure of the Wisconsin Schizotypy scales and the schizotypal personality questionnaire. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guloksuz, S., & van Os, J. (2017). The slow death of the concept of schizophrenia and the painful birth of the psychosis spectrum. Psychological Medicine, 48, 229–244. Scholar
  30. Haslam, N., Holland, E., & Kuppens, P. (2012). Categories versus dimensions in personality and psychopathology: a quantitative review of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 42, 903–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jablensky, A. (2010). The diagnostic concept of schizophrenia: its history, evolution, and future prospects. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 12, 271–287.Google Scholar
  34. Jackson, M., & Claridge, G. (1991). Reliability and validity of a psychotic traits questionnaire (STQ). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan, D., & Depaoli, S. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 650–673). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kendler, K. S., Thacker, L., & Walsh, D. (1996). Self-report measures of schizotypy as indices of familial vulnerability to schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 22, 511–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., ... & Eaton, N. R. (2017). The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): a dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477.Google Scholar
  38. Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personal- ity trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kwapil, T. R., & Barrantes-Vidal, N. (2012). Schizotypal personality disorder: an integrative review. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personality disorders (pp. 437–477). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kwapil, T. R., & Barrantes-Vidal, N. (2015). Schizotypy: looking back and moving forward. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41, S366–S373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lenzenweger, M. F. (2008). Epidemiology of personality disorders. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 31, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mason, O. J. (2015). The assessment of schizotypy and its clinical relevance. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41, S374–S385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mason, O., & Claridge, G. (2006). The Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (O-LIFE): further description and extended norms. Schizophrenia Research, 82(2-3), 203–211.Google Scholar
  46. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: a unified treatment. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Moorman, E. L., & Samuel, D. B. (2018). Representing schizotypal thinking with dimensional traits: a case for the five factor schizotypal inventory. Psychological Assessment, 30, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moshagen, M., & Musch, J. (2014). Sample size requirements of the robust weighted least squares estimator. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 10, 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Muthén, B. O., du Toit, S. H. C., & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  51. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  52. Preti, A., Siddi, S., Vellante, M., Scanu, R., Muratore, T., Gabrielli, M., Tronci, D., Masala, C., & Petretto, D. R. (2015). Bifactor structure of the schizotypal personality questionnaire (SPQ). Psychiatry Research, 230, 940–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Raine, A. (1987). Validation of schizoid personality scales using indices of schizotypal and borderline personality disorder in a criminal population. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Raine, A. (1991). The SPQ: a scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based on DSM-III-R criteria. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 17, 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ruscio, J., Ruscio, A. M., & Carney, L. M. (2011). Performing taxometric analysis to distinguish categorical and dimensional variables. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 170–196.Google Scholar
  58. Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & Van Der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 64, 583–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stefanis, N. C., Smyrnis, N., Avramopoulos, D., Evdokimidis, I., Ntzoufras, I., & Stefanis, C. N. (2004). Factorial composition of self-rated schizotypal traits among young males undergoing military training. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30, 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Venables, P. H. (1990). The measurement of schizotypy in Mauritious. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 965–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Venables, P. H., Wilkins, S., Mitchell, D. A., Raine, A., & Bailes, K. (1990). A scale for the measurement of schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vollema, M. G., & Ormel, J. (2000). The reliability of the structured interview for Schizotypy-revised. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26, 619–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vollema, M. G., & van den Bosch, R. J. (1995). The multidimensionality of schizotypy. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 21, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (2002). Risky tests, verisimilitude, and path analysis. Psychological Methods, 7, 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Walters, G. D., & Ruscio, J. (2009). To sum or not to sum: taxometric analysis with ordered categorical assessment items. Psychological Assessment, 21, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PsychologyVita-Salute San Raffaele UniversityMilanItaly
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations