BACKGROUND: The categorical classification system for personality disorder (PD) has been frequently criticized and several alternative dimensional models have been proposed.
METHOD: Antecedent, concurrent and predictive markers of construct validity were examined for three models of PDs: the Five-Factor Model (FFM), the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP) model and the DSM-IV in the Collaborative Study of Personality Disorders (CLPS) sample.
RESULTS: All models showed substantial validity across a variety of marker variables over time. Dimensional models (including dimensionalized DSM-IV) consistently outperformed the conventional categorical diagnosis in predicting external variables, such as subsequent suicidal gestures and hospitalizations. FFM facets failed to improve upon the validity of higher-order factors upon cross-validation. Data demonstrated the importance of both stable trait and dynamic psychopathological influences in predicting external criteria over time.
CONCLUSIONS: The results support a dimensional representation of PDs that assesses both stable traits and dynamic processes.
- construct validity,
- Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Study,
- Axis I,
- Axis II,
- Personality Disorders,
- Obssessive Compulsive,
- Behavioral Disciplines and Activities,
- Behavior and Behavior Mechanisms,
- Biological Psychology,
- Clinical Epidemiology,
- Clinical Psychology,
- Cognitive Psychology,
- Mental Disorders,
- Personality and Social Contexts,
- Psychiatry and Psychology,
- Psychological Phenomena and Processes,
- Psychology and
- Quantitative Psychology