Commentary on Krueger and Eaton's “Personality traits and the classification of mental disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM-5 and an empirical model of psychopathology”: Real-world considerations in implementing an empirically based dimensional model of personality in DSM-5.

Comments on the original article Personality traits and the classification of mental Disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM–5 and an empirical model of psychopathology by Robert F. Krueger and Nicholas R. Eaton (see record 2010-13810-003). In their article, Krueger and Eaton (pp. 97–118, this issue) advocate for a “more complete and extensive integration of personality traits in future DSMs [Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders], via the explicit inclusion of an empirically based, dimensional personality trait model” (p. 97) and review the “diverse ways in which the inclusion of an empirically based personality trait model could constitute a critical innovation in the transition from DSM–IV to DSM-5” (p. 113). Krueger and Eaton’s proposal that (DSM-5) adopt a dimensional personality trait approach exemplifies the difficulties of devising a classification scheme that satisfies the needs of the both the clinical and research communities. In this instance, the challenge is adapting a complex dimensional trait scheme developed and utilized almost exclusively by the research community, for clinical use. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A personality trait model for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM): The challenges ahead.

Replies to comments (see record 2010-13810-004), (see record 2010-13810-005), (see record 2010-13810-006), (see record 2010-13810-007) on the original article Personality traits and the classification of mental Disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM–5 and an empirical model of psychopathology by Robert F. Krueger and Nicholas R. Eaton (see record 2010-13810-003). We were sincerely flattered to discover that John Gunderson, Michael First, Paul Costa, Robert McCrae, Michael Hallquist, and Paul Pilkonis provided commentaries on our target article. In this brief response, we cannot hope to discuss the myriad points raised by this august group. Such a task would be particularly daunting given the diversity of the commentaries. Indeed, the diversity of the commentaries provides a kind of “metacommentary” on the state of personality and psychopathology research. That is, the intellectual diversity contained in the commentaries underlines the substantial challenges that lie ahead of us, in terms of articulating a model of personality and psychopathology with both scientific validity and clinical applicability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Commentary on “Personality traits and the classification of mental disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM-5 and an empirical model of psychopathology”.

Comments on the original article Personality traits and the classification of mental Disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM–5 and an empirical model of psychopathology by Robert F. Krueger and Nicholas R. Eaton (see record 2010-13810-003). This article develops the larger theme that the fundamental quantitatively developed architecture of personality provides a sound base for classifying all areas of psychopathology and, more specifically, should underlie the current effort to revise the classification of personality disorders (PDs) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). My commentary is organized around what I perceive to be four significant problems with the proposed change to a trait-based system: (1) unfamiliarity to clinicians (and possibly unfeasibility), (2) lack of clinical utility, (3) the preliminary quality of the science upon which the proposed change is based, and (4) harmful effects on the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Bridging the gap with the five-factor model.

Comments on the original article Personality traits and the classification of mental Disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM–5 and an empirical model of psychopathology by Robert F. Krueger and Nicholas R. Eaton (see record 2010-13810-003). Some researchers had hoped the forthcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) would ask psychiatrists (and the clinical psychologists and researchers who are also tied to the DSM) to leap the gap and embrace a trait-based taxonomy of personality pathology (Widiger & Trull, 2007). Krueger and Eaton (pp. 97–118, this issue) take a more pragmatic stance: They hope to coax psychiatrists across by introducing personality dimensions as an adjunct to familiar PD types; they envision that DSM-5 might serve “as a bridge” (p. 110, this issue) to a fully dimensional Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Sixth Edition (DSM-6). We acknowledge the wisdom of this strategy and suggest ways to strengthen it. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Striking the (Im)proper balance between scientific advances and clinical utility: Commentary on the DSM–5 proposal for personality disorders.

We review briefly the contributions of Skodol et al. (2011a, 2011b), Pincus (2011), and Widiger (2011) describing and critiquing the proposed changes in the assessment of personality and personality disorders for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5). Despite the hard work of the DSM–5 Work Group to date, there are shortcomings and areas of controversy in the current proposal that demand further attention and change. We discuss the controversy in the broader context of the DSM over the past 30 years. In addressing specific problems, we focus on the limitations of the proposed system for assessing traits (even as we endorse the movement toward dimensional assessment of personality) and the difficulties posed by the current “hybrid” model that attempts to include both traits and types. In moving forward, we suggest greater emphasis on decision making regarding the presence and severity of any personality disorder (understood on the basis of generalized failures in adaptation) and greater flexibility in identifying the variants of personality disorders in order to accommodate both traits and types more inclusively during this transition toward dimensional approaches to assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Age changes in personality and their origins: Comment on Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006).

Comments on the original article "Patterns of Mean-Level Change in Personality Traits Across the Life Course: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies," by B. W. Roberts, K. W. Walton, and W. Viechtbauer (see record 2006-00818-001). Although Roberts et al depicted the present authors as proponents of the immutability of traits, in fact we have always acknowledged the possibility of change, and we are pleased that the results of their meta-analysis are consistent with our conclusions about modest change after age 30. We agree with B.W. Roberts et al that analyses should be conducted at the level of more specific traits, but prefer the 30 facets of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory to the Social Dominance-Social Vitality distinction. The origins of age changes might be found either in environmental influences common to all cultures or in biologically based intrinsic maturation; we offer some reasons for preferring the latter interpretation. Meta-analyses are useful but not definitive, and the resolution of the origin question lies in further research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The self-efficacy—interest relationship and RIASEC type: Which is figure and which is ground? Comment on Armstrong and Vogel (2009).

Armstrong and Vogel (2009) proposed that the differences between self-efficacy and interests are a matter of measurement artifact rather than substance. In tests of this hypothesis, they conceived of self-efficacy and interest as observed indicators of larger RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional) types and as response method factors. We revisit the authors’ theoretical assumptions, measurement procedures, analyses, and interpretation of findings. When viewing this study in the context of the larger literature, we find ample support for the construal of self-efficacy and interests as distinct but related constructs. In addition, we examine the authors’ reanalysis of earlier longitudinal findings, reaching different conclusions than they did about the nature of the temporal relations among the social cognitive variables. Ultimately, whether one wishes to highlight or minimize the differences between interest and self-efficacy may largely depend on whether one’s purpose is explanation (e.g., how do people make career-relevant choices?) or classification (e.g., which RIASEC type does a person most resemble?). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of antisociality in the psychopathy construct: Comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010).

J. Skeem and D. J. Cooke (2010) asserted that Hare and Neumann consider criminality to be an essential component of the psychopathy construct. The assertion, presented in the guise of a debate on the nature of psychopathy, is neither accurate nor consistent with the clinical and empirical literature on psychopathy to which Hare and Neumann have contributed. Broadly defined antisociality, not criminality per se, is considered to be part of the psychopathy construct. Skeem and Cooke also expressed concerns that the popularity of the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (R. D. Hare, 2003) inhibits the development and use of other instruments, that it has become the construct it measures, that it deviates from its clinical roots, and that it conflates criminality with personality. These and related issues are addressed, and it is suggested that the arguments proffered by Skeem and Cooke are not convincing, nor do they provide clear directions for theory and research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010).

The issue of violent video game influences on youth violence and aggression remains intensely debated in the scholarly literature and among the general public. Several recent meta-analyses, examining outcome measures most closely related to serious aggressive acts, found little evidence for a relationship between violent video games and aggression or violence. In a new meta-analysis, C. A. Anderson et al. (2010) questioned these findings. However, their analysis has several methodological issues that limit the interpretability of their results. In their analysis, C. A. Anderson et al. included many studies that do not relate well to serious aggression, an apparently biased sample of unpublished studies, and a “best practices” analysis that appears unreliable and does not consider the impact of unstandardized aggression measures on the inflation of effect size estimates. They also focused on bivariate correlations rather than better controlled estimates of effects. Despite a number of methodological flaws that all appear likely to inflate effect size estimates, the final estimate of r = .15 is still indicative of only weak effects. Contrasts between the claims of C. A. Anderson et al. (2010) and real-world data on youth violence are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"The influence of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on goodness-of-fit assessments in structural equation models": Correction to la Du and Tanaka (1989).

Reports an error in "Influence of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on goodness-of-fit assessments in structural equation models" by Terence J. la Du and J. S. Tanaka (Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989[Aug], Vol 74[4], 625-635). Figure 2 (p. 631) summarizes Katzell's work motivation model and indicates where the trivial misspecification (dashed line) and nontrivial misspecification (starred line) occurred in our model specification condition. The error is in the latter. The starred line should be from Operations and Resources to Extrinsic Rewards and not from Rewards for Performance to Fruity. Our findings are not changed by this error, because we were using Katzell's model and accompanying data base to conduct a sampling study on goodness-of-fit indices and not testing his model. Hence, any of the paths were candidates for the nontrivial misspecification condition. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1989-38703-001.) The problem of assessing fit of structural equation models is reviewed, and two sampling studies are reported that examine the effects of sample size, estimation method, and model misspecification on fit indices. In the first study, the behavior of indices in a known-population confirmatory factor analysis model is considered. In the second study, the same problem in an empirical data set is examined by looking at antecedents and consequences of work motivation. The findings across the two studies suggest that (a) as might be expected, sample size is an important determinant in assessing model fit; (b) estimator-specific, as opposed to estimator-general, fit indices provide more accurate indications of model fit; and (c) the studied fit indices are differentially sensitive to model misspecification. Some recommendations for the use of structural equation model fit indices are given. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)