Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Taxometric Analyses

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1350-1



Taxometric analyses are a set of various mathematical procedures designed to determine whether the construct in question is dimensional/continuous (consisting of one class) or categorical/taxonic (consisting of two distinct classes).


The way researchers and practitioners assess a construct is rooted in whether that difference is conceptualized as a difference in degree (dimensional construct) or kind (categorical difference). This fundamental distinction can be particularly apparent in the field of medicine. The difference in the autosomal gene copy that determines the development of cystic fibrosis or Huntington disease is either present or absent, reflecting a categorical difference in type. In contrast, although categories have been superimposed upon weight (body mass index: BMI) and blood pressure values to qualify risk for health outcomes (e.g., obese, prehypertensive; National Heart, Lung, and Blood...


Taxometric Analysis Taxometric Procedures Taxon Determination Taxometric Methods Complementary Members 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cole, D. A. (2004). Taxometrics in psychopathology research: An introduction to some of the procedures and related methodological issues. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(1), 3–9.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.113.1.3.
  5. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  6. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Hilton, N. Z., Lalumiére, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (2007). Coercive and precocious sexuality as a fundamental aspect of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.1.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711001966.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Krueger, R. F., Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G. C., & Markon, K. E. (2014). Challenges and strategies in helping the DSM become more dimensional and empirically based. Current Psychiatry Reports, 16, 515–521.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Marcus, D. K., & Norris, A. L. (in press). Taxometric analysis. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences.Google Scholar
  10. Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences of kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117–174.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00269.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Meehl, P. E. (1995). Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50, 266–275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Meehl, P. E., & Yonce, L. J. (1994). Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports, 74, 1059–1274.Google Scholar
  13. Meehl, P. E., & Yonce, L. J. (1996). Taxometric analysis: II. Detecting taxonicity using covariance of two quantitative indicators in successive intervals of a third indicator (MAXCOV procedure). Psychological Reports, 78, 1091–1227.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). The seventh report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9630/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK9630.pdf.
  15. Ruscio, J. (2007). Taxometric analysis: An empirically grounded approach to implementing the method. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1588–1622.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807307027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ruscio, J., Haslam, N., & Ruscio, A. M. (2012). Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical guide. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Ruscio, J., & Marcus, D. K. (2007). Detecting small taxa using simulated comparison data: A reanalysis of beach, Amir, and Bau’s (2005) data. Psychological Assessment, 19, 241–246.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ruscio, A. M., & Ruscio, J. (2002). The latent structure of analogue depression: Should the BDI be used to classify groups? Psychological Assessment, 14, 135–145.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.2.135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruscio, A. M., Ruscio, J., & Keane, T. M. (2002). The latent structure of post-traumatic stress disorder: A taxometric investigation of reactions to extreme stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 290–301.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.2.290.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruscio, J., Ruscio, A. M., & Meron, M. (2007). Applying the bootstrap to taxometric analysis: Generating empirical sampling distributions to help interpret results. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 349–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701360795.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ruscio, J., Walters, G. D., Marcus, D. K., & Kaczetow, W. (2010). Comparing the relative fit of categorical and dimensional latent variable models using consistency tests. Psychological Assessment, 22, 5–21.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018259.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sellborn, M. (2013). Personality disorders in the DSM-5 and beyond. Psychologists in Public Service: The Gavel. Retrieved from http://www.apadivisions.org/division-18/publications/newsletters/gavel/2013/07/personality-disorders.aspx.
  23. Vater, A., Ritter, K., Strunz, S., Ronningstam, E. F., Renneberg, B., & Roepke, S. (2014). Stability of narcissistic personality disorder: Tracking categorical and dimensional rating systems over a two-year period. Journal of Personality Disorders, 5, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1998). Multivariate taxometric procedures: Distinguishing types from continua. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Waller, N. G. (2006). Carving nature at its joints: Paul Meehl’s development of taxometrics. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 210–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Walters, G. D. (2014). The latent structure of psychopathy in male adjudicated delinquents: A cross-domain taxometric analysis. Personality Disorders, 5, 348–355.  https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000088.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Walters, G. D., Ermer, E., Knight, R. A., & Kiehl, K. A. (2015). Paralimbic biomarkers in taxometric analyses of psychopathy: Does changing the indicators change the conclusion? Personality Disorders, 6, 41–52.  https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000097.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Walters, G. D., Marcus, D. K., Edens, J. F., Knight, R. A., & Sanford, G. M. (2011). In search of the psychopathic sexuality taxon: Indicator size does matter. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 23–39.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Widiger, T. A. (2007). Dimensional models of personality disorder. World Psychiatry, 6, 79–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Washington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Matthias Ziegler
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany