The Personality Psychopathology—Five (PSY–5): Recent constructive replication and assessment literature review.

Abstract

The Personality Psychopathology-Five (PSY-5; Harkness & McNulty, 1994) is a model of individual differences relevant to adaptive functioning in both clinical and non-clinical populations. In this article, we review the development of the PSY-5 model (Harkness, 1992; Harkness & McNulty, 1994) and discuss the ways in which the PSY-5 model is related to and distinct from other 5-factor models. Using different methods and measures, the dimensions of the PSY-5 model have been constructively replicated (Lykken, 1968) by Tackett, Silberschmidt, Krueger, and Sponheim (2008) and by Watson, Clark, and Chmielewski (2008), and dimensions congruent with the PSY-5 have even been suggested for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; Krueger et al., 2011). PSY-5 Scales can be scored from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al., 2001), the MMPI-Adolescent version (MMPI-A; Butcher et al., 1992), and the Restructured Form of the MMPI-2 (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). Because the largest body of research exists for the MMPI-2-based scales, we focus our review of the literature on the MMPI-2-based PSY-5 scales (Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995), but we briefly cover the small, but growing, body of MMPI-A and MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 scales research. We show that the PSY-5 research literature includes a wide variety of psychometric methodologies as well as diverse samples and clinical problems. An integrative summary reprises the theory behind each PSY-5 construct and links it to the reviewed literature. Advantages and limitations of MMPI-2-based PSY-5 scales are discussed.

General and Maladaptive Traits in a Five-Factor Framework for DSM-5 in a University Student Sample

“…From a theoretical point of view, the present findings support the validity of a hierarchical conceptualization of traits in which specific general and maladaptive traits are subsumed under the umbrella of a common set of five to six major dimensions of personality (Anderson et al, 2013;Harkness et al, 2012;Markon et al, 2005;Thomas et al, 2012). Such a framework may serve as a structurally valid model to examine psychopathology grounded in personality, including Axis-I psychopathology (De Bolle, Beyers, De Clercq, & De Fruyt, 2012;Krueger, 2005;Krueger & Eaton, 2010).…”

“…Alternatively, the joint factor structure can be also interpreted from a PSY-5 hierarchical perspective, similarly assumed to embrace normal personality and personality disorders (Harkness et al, 2012). Taking this angle, there is clear evidence from the current research for a separate Psychoticism factor, distinct from Negative Affectivity/Neuroticism, with the remaining general and maladaptive traits further subsumed under an Aggressiveness/Agreeableness, a Detachment/ Positive Affectivity-Extraversion, and a Conscientiousness/ Constraint factor, respectively.…”

“…The current results suggest that the PID-5 and the NEO-3 are very closely aligned empirically, suggesting that various inventories can and should be used to assess DSM-5 trait constructs. Nevertheless, additional work with other systems (e.g., the PSY-5, as operationalized in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; Harkness et al, 2012) and discussion of the use of other specific instruments for the clinical assessment of DSM-5 personality constructs will be important as the field transitions to the DSM-5 system.…”

“…The PSY-5's Negative and Positive Emotionality factors closely resemble the DSM-5 Negative Affectivity and Detachment factors, respectively, whereas the PSY-5 Constraint factor is conceptually (inversely) related to Disinhibition. The DSM-5 Antagonism factor shares content with PSY-5 Aggressiveness, and the Psychoticism factors from both models refer to modes and degrees of contact with reality (Harkness et al, 2012). Empirical evidence for these associations is provided by Anderson et al (2013).…”

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): An analysis of methodological and conceptual challenges

“…This matrix is not exhaustive, but it affords a reasonably comprehensive heuristic for grounding research projects in promising indicators of psychobiological systems. It is perhaps unfortunate, however, that the; proposed RDoC brain systems are not aligned more explicitly with well-established dimensions of normal and abnormal personality that bear clear-cut adaptive implications, such as the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5; Harkness, Finn, McNulty, & Shields, 2012;.…”