DSM‐IV personality disorders and the Five‐Factor Model of personality: a multi‐method examination of domain‐ and facet‐level predictions

Abstract

The personality disorder classification system (Axis II) in the various versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been the target of repeated criticism, with conceptual analysis and empirical evidence documenting its flaws. In response, many have proposed alternative approaches for the assessment of personality psychopathology, including the application of the Five‐Factor Model of personality (FFM). Many remain sceptical, however, as to whether domain and facet traits from a model of general personality functioning can be successfully applied to clinical patients with personality disorders (PDs). In this study, with a sample of psychiatric patients (n = 115), personality disorder symptoms corresponding to each of the 10 PDs were successfully predicted by the facet and domain traits of the FFM, as measured by a semi‐structured interview, the Structured Interview for the Five Factor Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997) and a self‐report questionnaire, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI‐R; Costa and McCrae, 1992). These results provide support for the perspective that personality psychopathology can be captured by general personality dimensions. The FFM has the potential to provide a valid and scientifically sound framework from which to assess personality psychopathology, in a way that covers most of the domains conceptualized in DSM while transcending the limitations of the current categorical approach to these disorders. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Personality Disorders and the Five-Factor Model among French Speakers in Africa and Europe

“…This indicates that relying only on broad personality dimensions to describe PDs 34,35 is not sufficient, and that lower-order traits are necessary to accurately describe PDs, as suggested by other authors. 13,36 Moreover, the replicability of the relation between PDs and the FFM was also supported by the analyses conducted for each African region and within African cultures. Several studies suggested that the openness to experience dimension is less useful for capturing PDs in normal 35,37 and clinical 13,14 samples.…”

“…13,36 Moreover, the replicability of the relation between PDs and the FFM was also supported by the analyses conducted for each African region and within African cultures. Several studies suggested that the openness to experience dimension is less useful for capturing PDs in normal 35,37 and clinical 13,14 samples. Our results confirm that relations between PDs and this dimension are weaker, but these small associations show cross-cultural replicability for the overall domain and for 5 of the 6 facet scales.…”

“…Widiger and colleagues 11 made predictions concerning the associations between the FFM and PD criterions and Dyce and O'Connor 12 were able to confirm 63% of these predictions in a sample of 614 undergraduates, suggesting that the FFM may be able to capture the PDs. Bagby and colleagues 13 tested the previously mentioned predictions on 115 psychiatric patients using the NEO-PI-R and the Structured Interview for the FFM and found general support concerning 7 of the 10 DSM-IV PDs. Huprich 14 found similar results on 51 veteran psychiatric outpatients.…”

Cross-cultural studies of personality traits and their relevance to psychiatry

“…High scores on Anxiety, Depression, Self-Consciousness, and Vulnerability, and low scores on Gregariousness, Assertiveness, and Excitement-Seeking predict Avoidant PD. Such predictions have found empirical support among North American populations (e.g., Bagby et al, 2005), and also some cross-cultural support in a Chinese clinical sample ). Given the crosscultural validity of the NEO-PI-R, it is tempting to extend the prediction of PDs to the 51 cultures assessed in the PPOC Project.…”

“…Several studies have shown that normal personality traits are systematically related to the development of Axis I disorders, such as mood (Bagby et al, 1995), anxiety (Krueger et al, 1996), and substance abuse (Flory et al, 2002). Even stronger are the conceptual and empirical links between the Axis II personality disorders (PDs) and the broad factors and specific facets of the FFM (Dyce & O'Connor, 1998, Bagby et al, 2005. These associations appear to be cross-culturally generalizable.…”