Sprock June
Department of Psychology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809, USA.
J Pers Disord. 2002 Oct;16(5):402-23. doi: 10.1521/pedi.16.5.402.22122.
Two national samples of psychologists (n = 92, n = 89) rated personality disorder cases using either the five factors (domains) or the 30 facets of the five-factor model (FFM) to examine reliability and clinical utility of the model when used as a diagnostic tool. The cases were prototypic and nonprototypic cases representing the three clusters of personality disorders in the DSM-IV. Although confidence was higher using the factors rather than the facets to rate the cases, interrater reliability was similar and the facets were rated more useful for professional communication, case conceptualization, and treatment. Mean ratings for the prototypic cases supported the theorized relationships between those personality disorders and the FFM. Principal components factor analysis of the facet ratings largely replicated the structure of the FFM with only a few facets failing to load with their superordinate dimension in the model. Implications for use of the FFM with personality disorder are discussed.
两组全国性的心理学家样本（n = 92，n = 89）使用五因素（领域）或五因素模型（FFM）的30个方面对人格障碍病例进行评分，以检验该模型用作诊断工具时的信度和临床效用。这些病例是代表《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版（DSM-IV）中人格障碍三个类别的典型和非典型病例。尽管使用因素而非方面对病例进行评分时信心更高，但评分者间信度相似，且方面在专业交流、病例概念化和治疗方面被认为更有用。典型病例的平均评分支持了那些人格障碍与FFM之间的理论关系。方面评分的主成分因子分析在很大程度上复制了FFM的结构，只有少数方面未能在模型中与其上级维度负荷。文中讨论了FFM在人格障碍应用中的意义。
