Steinmeyer E M, Klosterkötter J, Möller H J, Sass H, Herpertz S, Czernik A, Marcea J T, Matakas F, Mehne J, Bottländer H, Hesse W, Steinbring I, Pukrop R
Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie der Universität zu Köln.
Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2002 Dec;70(12):630-40. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-35853.
A dimensional diagnostic system for personality disorders (PD) postulates continuous transitions from normal to disordered personalities (continuity hypothesis) and universal validity of basic personality dimensions (universal hypothesis). In the present study three dimensional personality models that claim to provide a systematic representation of the overall domain of personality disorders were compared: the Big-Five model proposed by Costa and McCrae, the psychobiological model proposed by Cloninger and colleagues, and the "Dimensional Assessment of Personal Pathology (DAPP)" model proposed by Livesley and colleagues.
The "Six Factor Test" (SFT) measuring the Big-Five factors of personality, the "Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI)" measuring 4 temperament and 3 character dimensions, and the DAPP measuring 18 basic traits and 4 second ordered factors were administered to general population subjects (n = 156), and a clinical sample (n = 220) including a subsample of 69 patients with at least one diagnosis of DSM-IV PD. Group comparisons, regression analyses, and facet theoretical analyses were conducted.
The nonmetric similarity analyses of the three personality models show a nearly identical radex-representation of the second ordered factors in the non-clinical and clinical sample reflecting an universal validity of 4 basic personality dimensions and confirming the universal hypothesis. In comparison with the BIG-Five concept and the psychobiological model the DAPP model seems to be more sensitive to differentiate PD patients from controls with a reclassification rate of 94.5 %.
The Big-Five model, the DAPP and the TCI represent a substantially similar domain despite their different conceptualization. However, the DAPP was more sensitive to differences between PD patients and controls, offered a more comprehensive account of PD, and could differentiate the two groups more effectively.
人格障碍（PD）的维度诊断系统假定从正常人格到紊乱人格存在连续过渡（连续性假设）以及基本人格维度具有普遍有效性（普遍性假设）。在本研究中，对三种声称能系统呈现人格障碍整体领域的维度人格模型进行了比较：科斯塔和麦克雷提出的大五人格模型、克隆宁格及其同事提出的心理生物学模型以及利夫斯利及其同事提出的“人格病理学维度评估（DAPP）”模型。
对普通人群受试者（n = 156）以及一个临床样本（n = 220，其中包括69名至少被诊断患有一种DSM - IV人格障碍的患者子样本）施测测量人格大五因素的“六因素测验”（SFT）、测量4种气质和3种性格维度的“气质与性格量表”（TCI）以及测量18种基本特质和4个二阶因素的DAPP。进行了组间比较、回归分析和层面理论分析。
三种人格模型的非度量相似性分析表明，在非临床和临床样本中，二阶因素的环形表示几乎相同，反映了4种基本人格维度的普遍有效性，证实了普遍性假设。与大五人格概念和心理生物学模型相比，DAPP模型似乎在区分PD患者与对照组方面更敏感，重新分类率为94.5%。
尽管大五人格模型、DAPP和TCI的概念化不同，但它们代表了基本相似的领域。然而，DAPP对PD患者与对照组之间的差异更敏感，对PD的描述更全面，并且能更有效地区分这两组。
