Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
Contrasting prototypes and dimensions in the classification of personality pathology: evidence that dimensions, but not prototypes, are robust. |
| Authors: |
Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., South, S. C., Simms, L. J., Clark, L. A. |
| Source: |
Psychological Medicine. Jun2011, Vol. 41 Issue 6, p1151-1163. 13p. |
| Subjects: |
Analysis of variance, Factor analysis, Classification of mental disorders, Personality assessment, Personality disorders, Research funding, Self-evaluation, Statistics, Data analysis |
| Abstract: |
BackgroundDSM-5 may mark the shift from a categorical classification of personality pathology to a dimensional system. Although dimensional and categorical conceptualizations of personality pathology are often viewed as competing, it is possible to develop categories (prototypes) from combinations of dimensions. Robust prototypes could bridge dimensions and categories within a single classification system.MethodTo explore prototype structure and robustness, we used finite mixture modeling to identify empirically derived personality pathology prototypes within a large sample (n=8690) of individuals from four settings (clinical, college, community, and military), assessed using a dimensional measure of normal and abnormal personality traits, the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP). We then examined patterns of convergent and discriminant external validity for prototypes. Finally, we investigated the robustness of the dimensional structure of personality pathology.ResultsThe resulting prototypes were meaningful (externally valid) but non-robust (sample dependent). By contrast, factor analysis revealed that the dimensional structures underlying specific traits were highly robust across samples.ConclusionsWe interpret these results as further evidence of the fundamentally dimensional nature of an empirically based classification of personality pathology. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER] |
|
Copyright of Psychological Medicine is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
