This study was conducted to establish (a) the stability of the DSM-5 Section III personality disorder (PD) traits, (b) whether these traits predict future psychosocial functioning, and (c) whether changes in traits track with changes in psychosocial functioning across time. Ninety-three outpatients (61% Female) diagnosed with at least one PD completed patient-report measures at two time-points (M time between assessments = 1.44 years), including the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 and several measures of psychosocial functioning. Effect sizes of rank-order and mean-level change were calculated. In addition, Time 1 traits were used to predict functioning measures at Time 2. Finally, latent change score models were estimated for DSM-5 Section III traits and functioning measures, and correlations among latent change scores were calculated to establish the relationship between change in traits and functional outcomes. Findings demonstrated that the DSM-5 Section III traits were highly stable in terms of normative (i.e., mean-level) change and rank-order stability over the course of the study. Furthermore, traits prospectively predicted psychosocial functioning. However, at the individual level traits and functioning were not entirely static over the study, and change in individuals’ functioning tracked with changes in trait levels. These findings demonstrate that the DSM-5 Section III traits are highly stable consistent with the definition of PD, prospectively predictive of psychosocial functioning, and dynamically associated with functioning over time. This study provides important evidence in support of the DSM-5 Section III PD model.

Recently, integrative, hierarchical models of personality and personality disorder (PD)—such as the Big Three, Big Four and Big Five trait models—have gained support as a unifying dimensional framework for describing PD. However, no measures to date can simultaneously represent each of these potentially interesting levels of the personality hierarchy. To unify these measurement models psychometrically, we sought to develop Big Five trait scales within the Schedule for Adaptive and Nonadaptive Personality–2nd Edition (SNAP-2). Through structural and content analyses, we examined relations between the SNAP-2, Big Five Inventory (BFI), and NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) ratings in a large data set (N = 8,690), including clinical, military, college, and community participants. Results yielded scales consistent with the Big Four model of personality (i.e., Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Introversion, and Antagonism) and not the Big Five as there were insufficient items related to Openness. Resulting scale scores demonstrated strong internal consistency and temporal stability. Structural and external validity was supported by strong convergent and discriminant validity patterns between Big Four scale scores and other personality trait scores and expectable patterns of self-peer agreement. Descriptive statistics and community-based norms are provided. The SNAP-2 Big Four Scales enable researchers and clinicians to assess personality at multiple levels of the trait hierarchy and facilitate comparisons among competing “Big Trait” models.

Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) is an emerging technology in the personality assessment literature given the greater efficiency it affords compared with traditional methods. However, few studies have directly compared the efficiency and validity of 2 competing methods for personality CAT: (a) methods based on item response theory (IRT-CAT) versus (b) methods based on the countdown method (CM-CAT). To that end, we conducted real-data simulations with previously collected responses (N = 8,690) to the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP). Three CAT algorithms (IRT-CAT, IRT-CAT with 5-item minimum, CM-CAT) were evaluated for item savings, classification accuracy, and convergent/discriminant validity. All CATs yielded lower classification accuracy and validity than traditional testing but required 18%-86% fewer items. Ultimately, the IRT-CAT, with minimum 5-item requirement, struck the most ideal balance of highest item savings, and generally fewer costs to validity and accuracy. These results confirm findings regarding item savings trends from previous CAT studies. In addition, this study provides a model for how the validity and precision of CATs may be compared across personality assessments.

No abstract