Müller Steffen, Schroeders Ulrich, Bachrach Nathan, Benecke Cord, Cuevas Lara, Doering Stephan, Elklit Ask, Gutiérrez Fernando, Hengartner Michael P, Hogue Todd E, Hopwood Christopher J, Mihura Joni L, Oltmanns Thomas F, Paap Muirne C S, Pedersen Geir, Renn Daniela, Ringwald Whitney R, Rossi Gina, Samuels Jack, Sharp Carla, Simonsen Erik, Skodol Andrew E, Wright Aidan G C, Zimmerman Mark, Zimmermann Johannes
Department of Psychology, University of Kassel.
Department of Personality Disorders, GGZ Oost Brabant.
Personal Disord. 2025 Jul 24. doi: 10.1037/per0000736.
The factor structure of personality disorder (PD) criteria has long been debated, but due to previous heterogeneous findings, a common structure to represent covariation among the fourth edition Section II PD criteria remains an open question. This study integrated individual participant data from 25 samples ( = 30,545) to conduct factor analyses of PD criteria. Measurement invariance tests across gender, clinical status, and assessment method indicated substantial structural differences between interview-based and self-report measures. In interviews, a confirmatory 10-factor model with factors representing specific PDs showed a major misfit, with results from exploratory factor analyses suggesting that this was due to a relatively small number of substantial secondary loadings. In self-reports, a confirmatory 10-factor model showed greater misfit than in interviews, and exploratory solutions were more complex. When five factors were extracted, the factors showed some similarity to maladaptive trait domains such as Negative Affectivity and Disinhibition, but there were substantial differences in factor content between interviews and self-reports. In bifactor models, a general factor explained more common variance in self-reports, whereas the content of general factors was similar in both assessment methods. Our findings suggest that interview and self-report measures of PD criteria are not structurally equivalent. To advance research on the structure of PD, it may be useful to consequently focus on the shared variance of multiple methods. For this purpose, future multimethod studies should combine interviews and self-reports with other assessment methods such as informant reports. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
人格障碍(PD)标准的因素结构长期以来一直存在争议,但由于先前的研究结果参差不齐,代表《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版第二部分PD标准之间协变的共同结构仍是一个悬而未决的问题。本研究整合了来自25个样本(N = 30,545)的个体参与者数据,对PD标准进行因素分析。跨性别、临床状态和评估方法的测量不变性检验表明,基于访谈的测量和自我报告测量之间存在实质性的结构差异。在访谈中,一个具有代表特定PD因素的验证性10因素模型显示出严重的不匹配,探索性因素分析的结果表明,这是由于相对较少数量的实质性次要负荷所致。在自我报告中,一个验证性10因素模型显示出比访谈中更大的不匹配,探索性解决方案也更复杂。当提取五个因素时,这些因素与诸如消极情感性和抑制不足等适应不良特质领域有一些相似之处,但访谈和自我报告之间的因素内容存在实质性差异。在双因素模型中,一个一般因素在自我报告中解释了更多的共同方差,而两种评估方法中一般因素 的内容相似。我们的研究结果表明,PD标准的访谈和自我报告测量在结构上并不等同。为了推进对PD结构的研究,因此可能有必要专注于多种方法的共同方差研究。为此,未来的多方法研究应将访谈和自我报告与其他评估方法(如知情者报告)结合起来。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2025美国心理学会,保留所有权利)