Grants from the University of Minnesota Press funded data collection for the present study. Martin Sellbom is a paid consultant to the University of Minnesota Press, publisher of the MMPI-2-RF, which was used in the present study.

The 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) is the most widely used measure to assess the personality construct of alexithymia and is composed of three-factor analytically derived subscales. These subscales measure and represent three critical, theoretically based facets of alexithymia. The subscales are distinct, yet highly interrelated and only as a collective body do they reflect adequately the alexithymia construct. Although different studies using both university student and community samples suggest that TAS-20 total scores are largely reflective of variation on a single construct, and that subscale scores do not provide unique and reliable information beyond total scores, many users of the scale frequently continue to employ and even rely more heavily on subscale scores rather than total scale scores when interpreting research study outcomes. Our goal in this study is to provide clinicians and researchers with replicable psychometric information for the TAS-20 estimated from bifactor modeling in an attempt to provide further support for using total rather than subscale scores. In general, our findings were consistent with previous studies indicating that TAS-20 total scores can be considered indicative of a single construct. The replication of these earlier results from previous investigations provides additional support for the use of a total TAS-20 score and questions the utility of using TAS-20 subscale scores. Based on these results, we recommend that researchers and clinicians use a single total TAS-20 score and not subscale scores. Public Significance StatementThe 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) is a widely used instrument to assess the alexithymia personality construct. The scale is composed of three subscales, the items from which can be used to calculate a single total scale score. In this study, the investigators sought to determine if total scores are indicative of a single construct. The results reveal that the TAS-20 total score does indeed measure a single construct.

The eleventh edition of the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), recently approved by the World Health Organization, contains a new diagnostic approach for personality disorders. This approach partly involves the consideration of five dimensional trait domain qualifiers – Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Dissocial, Disinhibition, and Anankastia. Oltmanns and Widiger (2018) recently developed a self-report measure, the Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD), to assess the five domains; however, further examination of the psychometric properties of the PiCD is warranted due to its limited research base. The present study aimed to further examine the reliability, structural and concurrent validity, and method variance of the PiCD in an ethnically-diverse undergraduate sample (N = 518), who were also administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). First, results suggested that the PiCD domain scales exhibited adequate internal consistency reliability via coefficient categorical omega (range = .77 - .87). Next, exploratory structural equation modeling results suggested support for a four-factor solution, with the fourth factor thought to represent a bipolar continuum of Anankastia to Disinhibition severity. Random-intercept factor analysis results suggested a small amount of variance in items (4.88%) attributable to idiosyncratic scale usage. Lastly, relations between PiCD domains and MMPI-2-RF scales (PSY-5 and Higher-Order scales) provided support for the validity of the Negative Affectivity, Detachment, and Dissocial domains, though relatively less support for Disinhibition and Anankastia. Further examination of other psychometric properties and the nomological network of the PiCD is recommended.

A proposed feature of personality pathology involves disturbances in identity, of which a lack of insight is one such manifestation. From recommendations in the literature, one potential approach to assess and quantify such impairment and link it to personality pathology, would be to obtain self-reports and informant reports and subsequently index the degree personality pathology severity exacerbates self–other discrepancies. The current study examines the degree to which self-reports and informant reports of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM–5), Section III trait scores are discrepant (i.e., mean-level discrepancies and correlational accuracy), as well as whether general personality pathology severity moderates these characteristics. Target participants (N = 208) in an elevated-risk community sample completed the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5), and knowledgeable informants rated targets using the informant version of the PID-5. General personality pathology severity was assessed via an aggregate of five-factor model personality disorder prototype scores derived from self-report, informant-report, and interview ratings. Mean-level discrepancies and correlational accuracy (and their moderation by general personality pathology) for PID-5 domains, facets, and personality disorder scores were subsequently examined. Results suggested that targets tended to mostly rate themselves only slightly lower than informants across all PID-5 scores (median dz = .21), and correlational accuracy across all PID-5 scores was moderate (median r = .34). Importantly, however, mean-level discrepancies increased as general personality pathology severity scores increased. Implications and future directions for the multimethod assessment of dimensional personality pathology are discussed.

Anhedonia, the reduced capacity to experience pleasure, has long been considered a prominent feature of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Many domain-specific conceptualizations of anhedonia and pleasure capacity have been developed, and there currently exist a variety of self-report assessment tools that purport to assess these various domains. The current systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42020156169) aimed to quantify overall and domain-specific self-reported anhedonia in people with schizophrenia compared to nonpsychiatric controls. We performed a literature search of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for dissertations and peer-reviewed articles published in English prior to June 2021. Studies employing a psychometrically validated self-report measure of anhedonia, pleasure experience or affect in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or schizophreniform disorders; studies utilizing at least one clearly defined healthy or community control group for comparison; and studies providing sufficient data to calculate effect sizes were included in this review. Random and mixed effects meta-analyses, meta-regressions, and subgroup comparisons were run across domains of anhedonia to explore weighted mean effect sizes and their associated moderators. In total, 146 studies met inclusion criteria, yielding 390 Hedges’ g effect sizes from the included comparisons. People with schizophrenia reported moderate-to-large elevations in overall and domain-specific anhedonia. A sensitivity analysis accounting for high risk of bias studies did not significantly impact results. Lastly, patient sex, education, negative symptom severity, antipsychotic class, and trait negative affect differentially moderated effect sizes across domains of anhedonia. Despite the heterogeneity inherent in schizophrenia spectrum disorders, self-reported anhedonia is ubiquitously reported across self-report measures in this population.