Chmielewski Michael, Ruggero Camilo J, Kotov Roman, Liu Keke, Krueger Robert F
Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University.
Department of Psychology, University of North Texas.
Personal Disord. 2017 Jul;8(3):228-236. doi: 10.1037/per0000213. Epub 2016 Sep 12.
Two competing models of personality psychopathology are included in the fifth edition of the (; American Psychiatric Association, 2013); the traditional personality disorder (PD) model included in Section II and an alternative trait-based model included in Section III. Numerous studies have examined the validity of the alternative trait model and its official assessment instrument, the Personality Inventory for (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). However, few studies have directly compared the trait-based model to the traditional PD model empirically in the same dataset. Moreover, to our knowledge, only a single study (Suzuki, Griffin, & Samuel, 2015) has examined the dependability of the PID-5, which is an essential component of construct validity for traits (Chmielewski & Watson, 2009; McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2011). The current study directly compared the dependability of the traits, as assessed by the PID-5, and the traditional PD model, as assessed by the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4+), in a large undergraduate sample. In addition, it evaluated and compared their associations with functioning, another essential component of personality pathology. In general, our findings indicate that most traits demonstrate high levels of dependability that are superior to the traditional PD model; however, some of the constructs assessed by the PID-5 may be more state like. The models were roughly equivalent in terms of their associations with functioning. The current results provide additional support for the validity of PID-5 and the Section III personality pathology model. (PsycINFO Database Record
《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版(美国精神病学协会,2013年)包含了两种相互竞争的人格精神病理学模型;第二章中的传统人格障碍(PD)模型和第三章中的另一种基于特质的模型。众多研究考察了这种基于特质的替代模型及其官方评估工具——人格特质问卷(PID - 5;克鲁格、德林杰、马克龙、沃森和斯科多尔,2012年)的有效性。然而,很少有研究在同一数据集中将基于特质的模型与传统的PD模型进行实证直接比较。此外,据我们所知,只有一项研究(铃木、格里芬和塞缪尔,2015年)考察了PID - 5的信度,而信度是特质结构效度的一个重要组成部分(赫米莱夫斯基和沃森,2009年;麦克雷、库尔茨、山形和泰拉恰诺,2011年)。本研究在一个大型本科样本中,直接比较了通过PID - 5评估的特质的信度和通过人格诊断问卷 - 4(PDQ - 4 +)评估的传统PD模型的信度。此外,研究还评估并比较了它们与功能(人格病理学的另一个重要组成部分)之间的关联。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,大多数特质表现出高水平的信度,优于传统的PD模型;然而,PID - 5评估的一些构念可能更类似于状态特质。在与功能的关联方面,这两种模型大致相当。当前结果为PID - 5和第三章人格病理学模型的有效性提供了更多支持。(《心理学文摘数据库记录》