Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

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.

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

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

  • American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2017). Prior-posterior predictive P-values. Mplus Web Notes: No. 22, Version 2. Retrieved from: https://www.statmodel.com/download/PPPP.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2018.

  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claridge, G., & Broks, P. (1984). Schizotypy and hemisphere function: I. Theoretical considerations and the measurement of schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 633–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claridge, G., & Hewitt, J. K. (1987). A biometrical study of schizotypy in a normal population. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 227–257.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

  • Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2016). Convergent and discriminant validity of alternative measures of maladaptive personality traits. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1561–1575.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, W. R., & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate analysis: methods and applications. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., Meng, X. L., & Stern, H. (1996). Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies. Statistica Sinica, 6, 733–760.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717001775.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablensky, A. (2010). The diagnostic concept of schizophrenia: its history, evolution, and future prospects. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 12, 271–287.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M., & Claridge, G. (1991). Reliability and validity of a psychotic traits questionnaire (STQ). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 311–323.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kwapil, T. R., & Barrantes-Vidal, N. (2015). Schizotypy: looking back and moving forward. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41, S366–S373.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzenweger, M. F. (2008). Epidemiology of personality disorders. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 31, 395–403.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, O. J. (2015). The assessment of schizotypy and its clinical relevance. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41, S374–S385.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: a unified treatment. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: a more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raine, A. (1991). The SPQ: a scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based on DSM-III-R criteria. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 17, 555–564.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137–150.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruscio, J., Ruscio, A. M., & Carney, L. M. (2011). Performing taxometric analysis to distinguish categorical and dimensional variables. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 170–196.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Venables, P. H. (1990). The measurement of schizotypy in Mauritious. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 965–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollema, M. G., & Ormel, J. (2000). The reliability of the structured interview for Schizotypy-revised. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26, 619–629.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vollema, M. G., & van den Bosch, R. J. (1995). The multidimensionality of schizotypy. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 21, 19–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (2002). Risky tests, verisimilitude, and path analysis. Psychological Methods, 7, 323–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D., & Ruscio, J. (2009). To sum or not to sum: taxometric analysis with ordered categorical assessment items. Psychological Assessment, 21, 99–111.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Funding

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Psychology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Stamira d’Ancona, 20, Milan, 20127, Italy

    Antonella Somma, Serena Borroni & Andrea Fossati

  2. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Robert F. Krueger

  3. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

    Kristian E. Markon

Authors
  1. Antonella Somma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert F. Krueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristian E. Markon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Serena Borroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Fossati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonella Somma.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 19 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Somma, A., Krueger, R.F., Markon, K.E. et al. Schizotypy from the Perspective of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Traits: a Study on a Sample of 1056 Italian Adult University Students. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 41, 560–573 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-019-09718-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-019-09718-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation