Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Experimental Manipulation
of NEOPIR Items
The personality disorders included within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSMIV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994) are
diagnosed categorically. The diagnostic approach used in this manual represents
the categorical perspective that Personality Disorders represent qualitatively distinct clinical syndromes (APA, 1994, p. 633). An alternative perspective is that the
DSMIV personality disorder symptoms are extreme, maladaptive variants of common personality traits (Clark, Livesley, & Morey, 1997; Livesley, 1998; Widiger,
2000). A variety of dimensional models of personality disorder symptomatology
have been proposed, including (but not limited to) the three dimensions of positive
affectivity, negative affectivity, and constraint (Clark, 1993; Tellegen & Waller, in
press) and the seven dimensions of reward dependence, harm avoidance, persistence, novelty seeking, self-directedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence
340
341
342
The failure of these studies to confirm the predicted relationship for obsessivecompulsive personality disorder symptomatology is, in one respect, surprising, as the NEOPI, NEOFFI, and NEOPIR even include items that appear to
correspond explicitly with some DSM obsessivecompulsive diagnostic criteria
(e.g., Im something of a workaholic; Costa & McCrae, 1992b). However,
most of the NEOPIR Conscientiousness items might be describing adaptive
rather than maladaptive conscientiousness (e.g., I am efficient and effective at my
work, and Once I start a project, I almost always finish it; Costa & McCrae,
1992b), and persons who are excessively conscientious may not describe themselves as being effective or successful in their work. As suggested by Widiger and
Costa (1994)
it is not surprising that a person who would describe him- or herself on the NEOPIR
as being a productive person who always gets the job done and efficient and effective at my work (Costa & McCrae, 1992b) would not describe him- or herself as being overconscientious, unable to complete a project because his or her strict standards
are not met, and being preoccupied with order and organization to the extent that the
major point of the activity is lost. (p. 87)
Additional support for this hypothesis is obtained from studies that have correlated NEOPIR Conscientiousness with various editions of the Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon, Millon, & Davis, 1994) as the measure of obsessivecompulsive personality disorder symptomatology. Whereas correlations
for NEOPIR Conscientiousness have ranged from .14 to .02 (all ps > .05) when
obsessivecompulsive symptomatology was assessed by the CATI, MMPI, PDQ,
SIDPR, or SCIDII, Costa and McCrae (1990) reported a correlation of .38 (p <
.001) when the same symptomatology was assessed by the MCMI and .52 (p < .001)
when it was assessed by the MCMIII. Soldz et al. (1993) likewise obtained a correlation of .43 (p < .001) with the MCMIII assessment of obsessivecompulsive
symptomatology in a sample of 102 psychiatric outpatients (with conscientiousness
assessed in this instance by the 50-Bipolar Self-Rating scale; Goldberg, 1992), compared to .29 (p < .01) when the obsessivecompulsive symptomatology was assessed by the Personality Disorder Examination (Loranger, 1999). Hyer et al. (1994)
reported a correlation of .33 (p < .01) between the MCMIII ObsessiveCompulsive
scale and the NEOPI Conscientiousness scale in a sample of 80 male Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Finally, Dyce and OConnor (1998) obtained a correlation of .62 (p < .0001) between the MCMIIII Obsessive
Compulsive scale with the NEOPIR Conscientiousness scale in a sample of 614
college students.
The confirmation of the FFM prediction for obsessivecompulsive
symptomatology when a version of the MCMI is used may reflect the fact that
many of the MCMII, MCMIII, and MCMIIII items also appear to describe
343
344
METHOD
Materials
Each participant completed the following three measures of personality disorder
symptomatology: (a) Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP;
Clark, 1993), (b) MMPI2 Personality Disorder scales (MMPI2 PD; Colligan,
Morey, & Offord, 1994), and (c) PDQ4 (Hyler, 1994). Each participant also completed the NEOPIR and an experimentally altered version of the NEOPIR.
The order of their administration was randomized across 86 participants (described
later).
345
All three of these independent coders agreed unanimously with our judgments on
75% (181) of the 240 items; at least two of the three coders agreed with us on 90%
(217) of the 240 items. We reevaluated our decisions for the remaining 23 items.
The final coding of the 240 NEOPIR items indicated that 2% of the Neuroticism,
90% of the Extraversion, 88% of the Openness, 83% of the Agreeableness, and
90% of the Conscientiousness items were considered to involve a more adaptive,
desirable behavior when the person responded in the direction of a high level rather
than a low level of the respective domain of personality functioning (i.e., for 83% of
346
the 48 items assessing agreeableness vs. antagonism, the more desirable, adaptive
response would be to endorse the item as indicating agreeableness rather than
antagonism).
The second stage of the development of the EXPNEOPIR items was to alter
each NEOPIR item to reverse the direction of adaptiveness (or
maladaptiveness) without changing the direction in which the item was keyed or
otherwise altering the content of the item. Items were revised to suggest
maladaptiveness for the most part by simply inserting words such as excessively, too much, or preoccupied with to alter the behaviors described
within the item into a maladaptive variant of the same trait. For example, the
Conscientiousness item, I keep my belongings neat and clean, was revised to
I keep my belongings excessively neat and clean. Items judged to be describing a maladaptive or undesirable behavior or trait were likewise altered to items
describing an adaptive or desirable behavior or trait. Table 1 provides illustrative
examples of item manipulations from the NEOPIR Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness scales that were the primary focus of this study.
These 240 EXPNEOPIR items were then submitted to three additional graduate students in clinical psychology to independently and blindly judge the adaptiveness and desirability of each item to provide an estimate of the success of the
item reversals. The instructions were identical to those provided to the coders of
the original NEOPIR items. At least two of the three raters agreed with the alterations for 89% of the items. The wording of the remaining items was again reevaluated, although a degree of ambiguity appeared to be unavoidable for a few items.
Procedure
Participants were solicited at outpatient psychiatric clinics through flyers and ads.
Outpatients who were under 18 years of age, who had been given any form of psychotic diagnosis (e.g., schizophrenia), or who demonstrated an inability to adequately understand the written verbal instructions of the NEOPIR or other
instruments, were excluded. All other outpatients were included. Potential participants were given a brief description of the study by phone. Individual, face-to-face
meetings were scheduled for persons who appeared on the basis of the phone interview to qualify for participation. Written informed consent and biographic information was obtained during the face-to-face meetings. Each participant was
provided a packet with the five questionnaires (in randomized order), with a selfaddressed, stamped envelope for their return. Participants were blind to the purposes of the study, other than being told that the study was comparing how different questionnaires measure various characteristics of people in therapy. On
returning the completed questionnaires, each participant received a written explanation of the study and was paid $15.00 for their participation.
347
TABLE 1
NEOPIR and EXPNEOPIR Items
NEOPIR
EXPNEOPIR
Conscientiousness
I keep my belongings neat and clean
I think things through before coming to a
decision
I am a productive person who always gets the
job done
I adhere strictly to my ethical principles
Im something of a workaholica
Agreeableness
I would rather cooperate with others than
compete with them
I think of myself as a charitable person
Some people think of me as cold and
calculatingb
I believe that most people are basically wellintentioned
Id rather not talk about myself and my
achievementsa
Openness
I have a very active imagination
I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract
ideas
I am sometimes completely absorbed in
music I am listening to
How I feel about things is important to me
Once I find the right way to do something, I
stick to ita,b
RESULTS
Five of the original 91 outpatients who participated were subsequently excluded
from the analyses on the basis of a questionable validity of responses. More specifically, 3 participants whose raw scores on the SNAP Invalidity Index exceeded 25
were excluded. Participants who failed to respond to more than 10 items on any one
348
Scale
Paranoid
Schizoid
Schizotypal
Antisocial
Borderline
Histrionic
Narcissistic
Avoidant
Dependent
ObsessiveCompulsive
MMPI2
PDQ4
SD
SD
SD
10.15
6.61
10.05
7.91
11.51
8.07
7.83
10.34
8.95
11.98
6.1
3.5
5.6
5.1
5.2
4.3
4.1
4.8
5.0
3.5
4.82
4.96
5.17
7.40
9.32
6.66
5.52
8.48
7.66
6.05
3.2
2.4
2.8
3.6
3.5
2.7
2.4
3.7
3.7
2.1
3.05
2.13
3.20
1.37
4.05
2.91
2.55
4.15
2.35
3.73
2.0
1.8
2.2
1.5
2.5
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.0
1.8
Note. SNAP = Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993); MMPI2 =
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory2 Personality Disorder scales (Colligan, Morey,
&Offord, 1994); PDQ4 = Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire4 (Hyler, 1994).
of the measures were also excluded (Clark, 1993). None of the participants endorsed the items suggesting invalid responding on the PDQ4.
The final participants were 86 adults currently receiving outpatient psychotherapy within a public or private mental health center in Lexington, Kentucky. Seventy-seven percent of the participants were women, 56% were single, and 94%
were White. Ninety-four percent were receiving individual psychotherapy; the remaining 6% were receiving group or couples therapy (54% were receiving in addition an anxiolytic or antidepressant medication). The modal diagnoses were
anxiety and mood disorders. Many of the participants were also given personality
disorder diagnoses by their therapists, but the reliability and validity of these unstructured clinical diagnoses were not considered to be adequate for the purposes
of this study. The mean length of therapy was 1.6 years (SD = 2.8), with a range
from 1 week to 17 years in duration. The mean age of the sample was 36.4 years
(SD = 10.7, range from 18 to 67). The mean number of years of education was 14.8
(SD = 2.8, range from 6 to 21). Finally, the mean yearly income was $19,188 (SD =
18,061, range from $0 to $100,000).
The means and standard deviations obtained by the participants for each of the
personality disorder scales are presented in Table 2. The mean scores obtained on
the MMPI2 and PDQ4 scales are quite similar to (within a standard deviation of)
scores reported by Trull and Goodwin (1993) for a comparable sample of psychiatric outpatients. Five of the 10 MMPI2 personality disorder mean scores are more
than 1 standard deviation higher than the mean scores reported in the Colligan et
al. (1994) normative sample. All of the SNAP personality disorder mean scores are
within 1 standard deviation of those presented by Clark (1993) for a psychiatric
outpatient sample.
349
The three criterion measures obtained significant convergent validity coefficients for all of the respective personality disorder scales. For the personality disorders of primary interest to this study, the correlations ranged in value from .68
(PDQ4 with MMPI2) to .82 (PDQ4 with SNAP) for dependent
symptomatology; from .56 (SNAP with MMPI2) to .77 (SNAP with PDQ4) for
schizotypal symptomatology; and from .44 (PDQ4 with MMPI2) to .60 (PDQ4
with SNAP) for obsessivecompulsive symptomatology (p < .001 in each case).
Table 3 provides the correlations of the EXPNEOPIR domain scales with the
NEOPIR domain scales. The EXPNEOPIR scales correlated significantly with
the respective scales from the NEOPIR, ranging in value from .43 for Conscientiousness to .67 for Openness. However, there were also some instances of weak
discriminant validity. For example, the EXPNEOPIR Agreeableness scale correlated .50 with NEOPIR Neuroticism.
Table 4 provides the correlations of the NEOPIR domain scales with the ObsessiveCompulsive, Dependent, and Schizotypal scales from the SNAP,
MMPI2 and PDQ4. Table 4 also provides the correlations for the Avoidant and
Antisocial scales to provide a comparison of findings with scales for which consistently supportive findings have been obtained in prior research. It is evident from
Table 4 that the correlations for the NEOPIR replicated the prior research by obtaining a significant correlation of NEOPIR Neuroticism and Introversion with
avoidant personality disorder symptomatology, and NEOPIR Antagonism and
(low) Conscientiousness with antisocial personality disorder symptomatology.
However, of particular importance to this study was the replication of the failure to
obtain the hypothesized correlations of conscientiousness with obsessivecompulsive personality disorder symptomatology, agreeableness with dependent, or
openness with schizotypal. The only exception was the obtainment of a marginally
significant correlation of the NEOPIR Conscientiousness scale with the SNAP
ObsessiveCompulsive scale.
TABLE 3
Correlations of EXPNEOPIR With NEOPIR
EXPNEOPIR
NEOPIR
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
.48**
.03
.11
.00
.09
.21
.50**
.35**
.44**
.11
.29*
.19
.67**
.31*
.21
.50**
.46**
.22
.53**
.35**
.33*
.13
.08
.12
.43**
350
.39***
.56***
.36***
.13
.33**
.17
.04
.09
.11
.17
.03
.11
.73***
.70***
.67***
.30**
.50***
.25*
.23**
.29**
.09
.59***
.57***
.50***
.35***
.34**
.35***
.11
.15
.06
.29**
.16
.28**
.20
.19
.15
.64***
.73***
.70***
.75***
.66***
.53***
.33**
.30**
.20
.02
.06
.10
.31**
.32**
.38***
.43***
.43***
.46***
.45***
.33***
.31**
.24*
.23*
.31**
.06
.03
.05
.19
.26*
.13
.04
.17
.04
.27*
.15
.02
.43***
.49***
.46***
351
TABLE 5
Correlations of EXPNEOPIR Scales With Personality Disorder Scales
Scale
ObsessiveCompulsive
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Dependent
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Schizotypal
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Avoidant
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Antisocial
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
.20
.21
.12
.16
.11
.13
.21*
.24*
.17
.19
.47***
.33**
.69***
.47***
.69***
.18
.05
.21
.13
.03
.18
.57***
.66**
.45***
.27*
.20
.20
.28**
.24*
.33**
.33**
.41***
.29**
.36***
.38***
.35***
.08
.06
.10
.53***
.58***
.58***
.27*
.39***
.24*
.33**
.24*
.30**
.05
.05
.09
.12
.26*
.31**
.03
.04
.14
.20
.16
.10
.16
.06
.02
.38***
.41***
.37***
.40***
.49***
.34**
.10
.09
.09
.21
.00
.04
Note. EXPNEOPIR = experimentally manipulated NEO Personality InventoryRevised (Costa & McCrae,
1992b) items; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness;
SNAP = Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993); MMPI2 = Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory2 Personality Disorder scales (Colligan, Morey, & Offord, 1994); PDQ4 = Personality
Diagnostic Questionnaire4 (Hyler, 1994).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
ness and conscientiousness, that were obtained with the NEOPIR, were lost
when the maladaptiveness of the items was reversed (p < .05, df = 84).
DISCUSSION
The results of this study suggest that the NEOPIR does have substantially more
items describing desirable or adaptive behaviors keyed in the direction of high conscientiousness, high agreeableness, and high openness than keyed in the direction
of low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, or low openness. In addition, this
study also suggests that predicted relations of FFM conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness with obsessivecompulsive, dependent, and schizotypal personality disorder symptomatology (respectively) would be confirmed if some of
the items contained within these NEOPIR scales were altered to provide rela-
352
tively more representation of maladaptive or problematic variants of high conscientiousness, high agreeableness, and high openness.
An alternative interpretation of these findings is that the NEOPIR items were
simply revised to provide a more explicit representation of obsessivecompulsive,
dependent, and schizotypal symptomatology. A correlation between the MMPI2
ObsessiveCompulsive and PDQ4 Dependent scales could likewise be obtained
if the MMPI2 ObsessiveCompulsive items were replaced by items that represented explicitly the DSMIV criteria for dependent personality disorder. However, we did not replace NEOPIR items with new items that represented the
respective personality disorder symptomatology. On the contrary, the items were
revised only to indicate that the behaviors or trait already described therein were
excessive, extreme, problematic, or maladaptive. For example, displaying prudence was revised to displaying excessive prudence, being productive was revised
to being excessively productive, and working hard to accomplish ones goals was
revised to working too hard (see Table 1).
Some of the revisions did result in items that might appear to describe personality disorder symptomatology. For example, the revision of the NEOPIR Openness item describing an active imagination to one describing an excessive
imagination might be said to have resulted in an explicit representation of DSMIV
schizototypal symptomatology (e.g., magical thinking or unusual perceptual experiences), and the revision of the NEOPIR Conscientiousness item describing an
adherence to ethical principles to one describing an extreme adherence might be
said to have resulted in an explicit representation of DSMIV obsessivecompulsive symptomatology (e.g., overconscientious or scrupulousness about matters of
morality, ethics, or values). However, these resulting correspondences in content
offer themselves face validity for the original FFM hypotheses. If simply inserting
an indication that a behavior or trait described within a NEOPIR item is excessive creates an item that resembles closely a DSMIV personality disorder diagnostic criterion, this would suggest that the original items were already close to the
personality disorder symptomatology. Missing from the items was simply the indication that the conscientiousness, agreeableness, or openness traits described
therein were excessive, extreme, or maladaptive.
The existing NEOPIR items to assess conscientiousness, agreeableness, and
openness were not written to assess obsessivecompulsive, dependent, or
schizotypal symptomatology. The items were written to assess hypothesized domains and facets of the FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992b). The results of this
study indicate that simply altering the content of the items to indicate that the behaviors, attitudes, or traits described therein are excessive, problematic, or otherwise
maladaptive produces items that correlate substantially with obsessivecompulsive, dependent, or schizotypal personality disorder symptomatology and, in some
instances, even produce items that resemble explicitly the symptomatology for these
personality disorders. Removal of references to maladaptive, excessive, or extreme
variants of the trait, attitudes, or behaviors described therein likewise reduced (if not
353
eliminated) the predicted correlations with avoidant and antisocial personality disorder symptomatology. The results of this study thereby offer further support for the
hypothesis that the personality disorders represent maladaptive variants of normal
personality traits (Widiger & Costa, 1994).
Limitations of This Study
The convergent validity of the three criterion measures (SNAP, MMPI2, and
PDQ4) was good to excellent for the assessment of dependent and schizotypal
symptomatology. Convergent validity for their assessment of obsessivecompulsive symptomatology, however, was somewhat weaker (ranging in value from .44
to .60, p < .001). One possible explanation for the weaker convergence in their assessment of obsessivecompulsive symptomatology was a relatively more limited
range of this symptomatology within the sample (see Table 2). Nevertheless, despite their relatively weaker convergent validity, the hypotheses of the study were
still confirmed by all three criterion measures of obsessivecompulsive
symptomatology.
It is important to emphasize that the experimental manipulation of the
NEOPIR items was not entirely successful. The intention of the alteration was
not to otherwise alter the content of the items such that they would no longer be
representative of or correlate with a respective FFM domain. Empirical support for
the retention of the original content of the NEOPIR items was provided by the
convergent correlations of the scales from the EXPNEOPIR with the respective
scales from the NEOPIR (see Table 3). However, the convergent validity coefficients were perhaps less than expected given the overlap in content that remained
after the item alterations. Correlations of .43, .53, and .67 between the original
NEOPIR and EXPNEOPIR Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness
scales, respectively, does suggest a convergent validity, but these correlations are
perhaps less than would be expected or desired. In addition, there was weakened
discriminant validity. For example, EXPNEOPIR Agreeableness correlated as
highly with NEOPIR Neuroticism (.50, p < .01) as it did with NEOPIR
Agreeableness (.53, p < .01).
In defense of the EXPNEOPIR, it should also be noted that the NEOPIR did
not itself always obtain good discriminant validity in this study. For example,
NEOPIR Neuroticism also correlated .51 (p < .001) with NEOPIR Conscientiousness. Nevertheless, the loss of acceptable levels of discriminant validity with
the experimentally revised items was probably due in large part to unintended alterations to the content or meaning of the items. For example, the insertion of the
maladaptive component within some of the agreeableness items apparently had the
effect of adding components of neuroticism. The NEOPIR Agreeableness item, I
dont mind bragging about my talents and accomplishments (keyed false for agreeableness) was revised to I am able to acknowledge my talents and accomplishments. Responding false to the original item was rated as more desirable or adaptive
354
than responding true (e.g., responding in an affirmative direction suggested an undesirable arrogance in contrast to a more desirable or adaptive modesty). The intention
of the revision was to reverse the direction of the undesirability while retaining the
original content and the direction of keying. The revision was judged by the independent coders to be successful (i.e., being able to acknowledge ones talents and accomplishments is more desirable, adaptive than not being able to do so). However,
being unable to acknowledge ones talents and accomplishments may also suggest a
depressiveness, anxiousness, or self-consciousness of neuroticism as well as an excessive modesty. Individuals high in neuroticism characteristically complain of being distressed by a variety of problems (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). Reformulating a
statement into one that describes difficulties with a poor self-image is likely to be assessing, at least in part, neuroticism.
A more conscientious process of item alteration would have included pilot versions of EXPNEOPIR items correlated with NEOPIR scales to assess their
convergent and discriminant validity. The use of pilot data to obtain correlations of
proposed item revisions with NEOPIR scales would have alerted us to the presence of potentially problematic item revisions prior to the data collection. More
valid FFM items might then have been constructed. However, the purpose of this
study was not in fact to develop new items for the NEOPIR. The purpose of this
study was appreciably more modest. Its purpose was simply to determine whether
a particular experimental manipulation of existing items would have an hypothesized effect. More specifically, whether the predicted correlations of conscientiousness with obsessivecompulsive personality disorder symptomatology,
agreeableness with dependent symptomatology, and openness with schizotypal
symptomatology could be obtained by simply introducing such words as excessive, extreme, or problematic into existing items. The results of the study
have confirmed these hypotheses, and the findings do appear then to have significant implications for NEOPIR personality disorder research and for potential
revisions to the NEOPIR.
Implications for Future Research
The NEOPIR is the preferred measure of the FFM (Briggs, 1992; Widiger &
Trull, 1997), but the results of this study suggest that a more comprehensive assessment of adaptive and maladaptive personality traits would require a revision to the
NEOPIR. Clinical assessments of personality disorder symptomatology will at
times be concerned with the assessment of obsessivecompulsive, dependent, and
schizotypal personality traits. These personality disorders are not currently well assessed by the NEOPIR, but the results of this study suggest that only minor revisions or extensions of the NEOPIR are needed to obtain more valid and
comprehensive assessments of obsessivecompulsive, dependent, and schizotypal
personality traits.
355
356
357
orders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 261277). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., & Morey, L. (1997). Personality disorder assessment: The challenge of
construct validity. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11, 205231.
Clarkin, J. F., Hull, J. W., Cantor, J., & Sanderson, C. (1993). Borderline personality disorder and personality traits: A comparison of SCIDII BPD and NEOPI. Psychological Assessment, 5, 472476.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament
and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975990.
Coan, R. W. (1974). The optimal personality. New York: Columbia University Press.
Colligan, R. C., Morey, L. C., & Offord, K. P. (1994). The MMPI/MMPI2 personality disorder scales:
Contemporary norms for adults and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 168200.
Coolidge, F. L., Becker, L. A., Dirito, D. C., Durham, R. L., Kinlaw, M. M., & Philbrick, P. T. (1994).
On the relationship of the five-factor personality model to personality disorders: Four reservations.
Psychological Reports, 75, 1121.
Coolidge, F. L., & Merwin, M. M. (1992). Reliability and validity of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory: A
new inventory for the assessment of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59,
223238.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 362371.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343359.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEOPIR) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEOFFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using
the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 2150.
Dyce, J. A., & OConnor, B. P. (1998). Personality disorders and the five-factor model: A test of facetlevel predictions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 3145.
First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997). Users guide for
the Structured Clinical Interview for DSMIV Axis II personality disorders. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the big five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 2642.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48,
2634.
Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S.
Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 849870). New York: Academic.
Hyer, L., Braswell, L., Albrecht, B., Boyd, S., Boudewyns, P., & Talbert, S. (1994). Relationship of
NEOPI to personality styles and severity of trauma in chronic PTSD victims. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 50, 699707.
Hyler, S. E. (1994). Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire4 (PDQ4). Unpublished test, New York
State Psychiatric Institute.
Hyler, S. E., Rieder, R. O., Williams, J. B. W., Spitzer, R. L., Lyons, M., & Hendler, J. (1989). A comparison of clinical and self-report diagnoses of DSMIII personality disorders in 552 patients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 30, 170178.
Leaf, R. C., DiGiuseppe, R., Ellis, A., Mass, R., Backx, W., Wolfe, J., & Alington, D. E. (1987).
Healthy correlates of MCMI Scales 4, 5, 6, and 7. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 312328.
Livesley, W. J. (1998). Suggestions for a framework for an empirically based classification of personality disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 137147.
358
Loranger, A. W. (1999). International Personality Disorder Examination (PDE). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Millon, T., Millon, C. M., & Davis, R. (1994). MCMIIII manual. Minneapolis: National Computer
Systems.
Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). MMPI scales for DSMIII personality disorders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245251.
OConnor, B. P., & Dyce, J. A. (1998). A test of models of personality disorder configuration. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 107, 316.
Pfohl, B., Blum, N., Zimmerman, M., & Stangl, D. (1989). Structured interview for DSMIIIR Personality (SIDPR). Iowa City: University of Iowa College of Medicine.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic.
Shopshire, M. S., & Craik, K. H. (1994). The five factor model of personality and the DSMIIIR personality disorders: Correspondence and differentiation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 8, 4152.
Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1993). Representation of personality disorders in
circumplex and five-factor space: Explorations with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 5,
4152.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (in press). Exploring personality through test construction: Development
of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality measures: Development and evaluation (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Trull, T. J. (1992). DSMIIIR personality disorders and the five factor model of personality: An empirical comparison. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 553560.
Trull, T. J., & Goodwin, A. H. (1993). Relationship between mood changes and the report of personality
disorder symptoms. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 99111.
Trull, T. J., Useda, J. D., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Comparison of the MMPI2 Personality
Psychopathology Five (PSY5), the NEOPI, and the NEOPIR. Psychological Assessment, 7,
508516.
Widiger, T. A. (2000). Personality disorders in the 21st century. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14,
316.
Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (1994). Personality and personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 7891.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1997). Assessment of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 228250.
Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., & Costa, P. T. (1994). A description of the
DSMIIIR and DSMIV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality. In P. T.
Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp.
4156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, H. A. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorder and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment, 1, 305316.
Yeung, A. S., Lyons, M. J., Waternaux, C. M., Faraone, S. V., & Tsuang, M. T. (1993). The relationship
between DSMIII personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 34, 227234.
Thomas A. Widiger
Department of Psychology
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 405060044
E-mail: widiger@uky.edu
Received July 27, 2000
Revised February 18, 2001